Create strength workout

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write operation. The description adds that the workout is placed on the athlete's calendar and is structured into blocks, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or failure modes. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 exactly two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and the second compactly summarizing the block structure. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the comprehensive schema and annotations, the description covers the essential facts: the tool creates a structured strength workout, places it on the calendar, and uses blocks with parameters. It mentions the dependency on tp_search_exercises. A brief note about the optional athlete parameter or possible errors would improve completeness, but the current description is adequate for selecting the tool.

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?

The input schema already provides full parameter descriptions, including a detailed breakdown of the blocks structure. The description adds the useful hint that exercises come from tp_search_exercises and lists example parameters, but this is largely redundant with the schema, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'structured strength/gym workout' on the athlete's calendar. It distinguishes this from generic workout creation tools by emphasizing the strength/gym focus and referencing tp_search_exercises.

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 the workflow by stating blocks come from tp_search_exercises, which hints that users should search for exercises first. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like tp_create_workout, nor does it provide when-not conditions or alternative tool mentions.

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