Create library item

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the write behavior is known, but the description adds no further context about duplicate handling, ownership, required permissions, or side effects. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, it is so terse that it leaves substantial details to be inferred from other fields, making it slightly under-sized for a tool with this complexity.

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 write tool with 9 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not mention required fields, the required structure object, or what the API returns after creation, leaving the agent without critical context.

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 only 44% (4 of 9 parameters have descriptions), and the tool description mentions none of the parameters. Undocumented fields like tss, duration_hours, and description remain unexplained, and the nested 'structure' object is not clarified.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Save' and names the resource ('workout template', 'library'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like tp_create_library or tp_update_library_item. It does not list what fields the template includes, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tp_schedule_library_workout or tp_update_library_item. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate context and exclusions.

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