update-workout

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description mentions returns but does not elaborate on side effects, required permissions, or partial update behavior. It neither contradicts nor significantly extends 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with action, no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description includes return value info. It adequately covers parameters and behavior for a straightforward update tool. Lacks error handling or prerequisite details, but sufficient for typical use.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by enumerating modifiable fields (title, description, start/end times, privacy, exercises). It helps the agent understand what each parameter group does, though it does not detail subfields like exercise parameters.

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 ("Update an existing workout"), the resource (workout), and lists the modifiable fields. It distinguishes from siblings like create-workout (create vs update) and get-workout (read vs write).

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 implies use when modifying an existing workout but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives (e.g., update-routine) or any prerequisites. No guidance on when not to use this tool.

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