Update library item

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional context about side effects, required fields, or behavior on update. It merely restates the action of editing, which is consistent with annotations but contributes no new transparency.

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 sentence with no redundant words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is minimal to the point of underspecification, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness flaw, so it earns a 4 for efficiency.

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 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the two-word description is grossly insufficient. It doesn't mention required fields (library_id, item_id), the effect on the template, or any constraints. The description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 20% (only 'athlete' and 'workout_type_id' have descriptions), but the tool description provides zero parameter semantics. It does not explain any of the 10 parameters, their purpose, or how they map to a workout template. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Edit a workout template' clearly identifies the action (edit) and the resource (workout template, which corresponds to a library item). It distinguishes from sibling create/delete tools by implying modification, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like tp_update_workout.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention that it updates an existing library item, nor does it reference sibling tools like tp_create_library_item or tp_get_library_item. Users are left without context for selection.

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