Update Concept2 Workout Result

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: the ownership restriction and partial-update semantics. However, it does not disclose failure modes or response content, though the idempotentHint and destructiveHint reduce the need for more.

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 structured with an intro, ownership note, instruction, and Args block. The Args block largely duplicates the schema's property descriptions, adding redundancy. The unique content (ownership, partial update) is concise, but the section could be trimmed to reduce repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description mentions response_format but does not describe the response body or error cases (e.g., missing result ID, unauthorized access). For a tool with 16 parameters, the description covers the key operation and constraints but lacks result/error details, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 the schema already documents all 16 parameters. The description reinforces the partial-update behavior ('only provided fields will be changed') but otherwise the Args section simply restates the schema, providing minimal additional meaning.

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 workout result in the Concept2 Logbook, using a specific verb ('update'), resource ('workout result'), and context. This distinguishes it from siblings like concept2_create_result, concept2_get_result, and concept2_list_results.

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 clear usage context: 'Only the result's owner can update it' and 'Provide only the fields you want to change.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the instructions make the intended scenario clear.

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