Update speed zones

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether partial updates are supported or any prerequisites. It simply restates the tool's function without enriching the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple update tool, though the lack of elaboration is a minor trade-off. The brevity does not hinder clarity here.

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 simplicity, schema, and annotations, the description is still thin. It provides no context on typical use cases, prerequisites, or expected outcomes. It does not explain what 'pace zones' means or how thresholds map to zones, and there is no output schema to clarify return values.

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 parameter meanings are well-documented. The description adds minimal value beyond confirming that run and swim thresholds are updated, but it does not introduce new semantic details or examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'run/swim pace zones', distinguishing it from sibling tools like tp_update_ftp and tp_update_hr_zones. It is concise and specific, though it could more explicitly frame the concept of pace zones.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention coach/athlete context or that omitting parameters might leave zones unchanged. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and schema.

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