Propose New Exercise

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that a proposal is created rather than the exercise itself, that the proposal lands in a coach inbox, that duplicate names short-circuit to an existing UUID, and what is returned in that case. This is valuable behavioral depth.

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 tight sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the important duplicate/idempotency behavior stated in the second sentence. No fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, non-destructive behavior, and dedup behavior, but with no output schema it leaves the normal success return value unexplained and does not clarify how to fill the required fields. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, but with real gaps.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It only indirectly references 'name'; mode, usesWeight, and rationale are left to bare schema types and enums.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Propose a brand-new custom exercise for human review.' It explicitly contrasts with direct creation ('Never creates it directly') and names the exact delivery path, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling proposal tools.

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 is clear this tool is for submitting a new exercise for coach review rather than for creating or modifying an existing catalog entry. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough to route selection.

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