Update strength workout

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) and not read-only, so the description's 'preserves everything else' aligns and adds specificity about Garmin-derived TSS and attached FIT file. It further explains why in-place update is safe for training load, providing context beyond the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key operations, followed by a high-value usage warning. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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 an 8-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers core behavior, the primary use case, and the critical preservation guarantee (TSS, FIT file). It doesn't describe return format or auth, but the schema and annotations cover the details, making this sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds workflow-level meaning by linking mode and mark_complete to the device-synced workout scenario, and clarifies that omitting blocks preserves existing structure. This goes beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 updates an existing strength workout 'in place' with specific operations: replace/append blocks, retitle, or mark complete. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like create, delete, and get strength workouts.

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 explicitly says this is 'the correct way to fill in a device-synced workout' and warns 'Never delete-and-recreate for that' because exercise detail is rebuildable but HR-derived training load is not. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance including an alternative to avoid.

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