Create workout

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnly=false) and non-destructive behavior. The description adds one behavioral nuance: 'Duration is auto-computed only from simplified structure when not provided.' This is useful but limited; it does not disclose permissions, side effects, or response behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes only one additional behavioral note. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 tool's complexity (15 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain return values or provide a high-level workflow for using simplified structure vs native payload. However, the rich schema and the single auto-compute note provide some grounding. This is adequate but leaves clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 93%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds a semantic rule connecting duration_minutes and structure ('Duration is auto-computed only from simplified structure when not provided'), which adds value beyond the schema. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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's function: 'Create a planned workout' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes between two input modes (simplified interval structure vs native TP structured_workout payload), which aligns with the input schema. While sibling tools like tp_create_strength_workout exist, the 'planned workout' scope is clear enough for selection.

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 provides some context on when to use each structure option and notes that duration auto-computes from simplified structure, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tp_update_workout or tp_create_strength_workout. It offers implied usage rather than explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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