Update workout

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that the operation fetches the existing workout, merges changes, and saves—a merge rather than a full replace. This is important for understanding how partial updates work. It also notes compatibility with tp_create_workout's structure format. Annotations already cover mutability and idempotence, so no contradiction.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently communicates key behavior (merge, structure format). Every clause serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 (18 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides essential merge semantics and format linkage but lacks details about usage scenarios, response behavior, or constraints on which fields can be updated. It is minimally adequate for a tool of this scope.

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?

With only 44% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the relationship between 'structure' and 'structured_workout' and pointing to tp_create_workout for format details. However, it does not add meaning for many other undocumented parameters (e.g., tags, sport, title), leaving them unexplained.

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 explicitly states 'Update fields of an existing workout', which is a specific verb+resource pair. It also distinguishes from tp_create_workout by mentioning the shared interval structure format and the merge behavior, making its scope clear relative to siblings.

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?

It references tp_create_workout for the structure format, guiding users to consult that tool for details. The merge behavior ('fetches existing, merges, and saves') implies partial updates are supported, which is useful usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or list exclusions.

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