Update FTP

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that it rescales the matching power-zone set and preserves the calculation method. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not detail the full nature of the rescaling or any potential side effects on existing workout data.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose, action, and a critical side effect without redundancy. Every word contributes value, and the parenthetical clarifies FTP without bloating the text.

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?

No output schema exists, but the tool is a simple update operation. The description covers the main behavior (FTP update) and the important side effect (zone rescaling with method preservation). It does not mention return values or post-conditions, but those are less critical for an update tool given the available annotations and schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema—'power threshold' clarifies FTP slightly, but the schema already documents units, defaults, and the athlete field's coach-only caveat. The description does not meaningfully extend 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 begins with a specific verb ('Update') and identifies the exact resource ('FTP (power threshold)') and a key side effect ('rescale the matching power-zone set'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tp_update_hr_zones or tp_update_speed_zones. It fully conveys the tool's unique function.

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 usage: use this when you need to update FTP and rescale power zones. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., for updating heart rate zones or speed zones). Context from sibling names helps, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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