Correct the most recent set in your open workout by updating reps, weight, exercise, or notes, or delete it entirely.
Fix the most recent set in the open workout ("that was 10 reps", "that was cable pushdowns"), or delete it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rpe | No | ||
| kind | No | ||
| reps | No | ||
| unit | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| delete | No | ||
| weight | No | ||
| exercise | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it can fix or delete the last set, but does not state prerequisites (e.g., an open workout with at least one set), side effects of deletion, or any return value. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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?
A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes illustrative examples. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.
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 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too minimal. It does not explain how to choose parameters for edit vs delete, whether fields are mutually exclusive, or any operational requirements. The agent would struggle to invoke it correctly.
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 0% and the description does not map its examples to parameters. The phrases 'that was 10 reps' and 'that was cable pushdowns' hint at reps and exercise/kind, but no explicit linkage to the 8 parameters is provided, leaving the agent guessing how to specify edits.
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 action ('Fix the most recent set') and the resource (the open workout's last set), with concrete examples of corrections. It also mentions the alternative delete action. This distinguishes it from siblings like log_set (adding sets) and edit_food (different domain).
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 provides clear context: use when correcting the most recent set in the open workout, with illustrative phrases. It does not explicitly contrast with log_set or state when not to use it, but the scope is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.