Copy workout

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds behavior beyond annotations by enumerating what is copied (structure, description, planned fields). This is useful context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations, which only indicate the safety profile. It does not contradict annotations, and though it could mention what is not copied (e.g., comments, results), it provides meaningful behavioral detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with no redundancy or fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds a clarifying detail about what is copied. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It explains what gets copied but does not mention what happens on success (e.g., returns new workout ID), whether the source remains intact, or any caveats about existing workouts on the target date. Given the moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the basics but leaves gaps in expected behavior and return value.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already well-documented. The description adds limited value by implying that target_date is the new date and workout_id is the source, but it does not explain the optional parameters title and athlete beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool copies a workout to a new date, which is a specific verb+resource+target combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tp_create_workout and tp_update_workout by focusing on duplication rather than creation or modification. Mentioning that it copies structure, description, and planned fields adds specificity about what is copied.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies its usage: use when you need to duplicate an existing workout to another date. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tp_create_workout or tp_update_workout. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites, so the usage context is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.