Create Hevy Workout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: default is preview-only, new workouts are private by default, and writes should be user-initiated. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or what a preview returns, so it adds moderate value beyond 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core preview-vs-write distinction, and each sentence carries actionable information. Minor redundancy between the dry_run sentence and the 'only execute a write' sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the key top-level semantics are covered. For a tool with a deeply nested workout object at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the set-level fields and their constraints entirely to the schema, which is a meaningful gap.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain dry_run's default-true preview semantics, timezone-aware timestamps, explicit exercise template IDs, and is_private defaulting to true. However, the large nested sets object (reps, weight_kg, rpe, duration_seconds, type enum, etc.) receives no explanation, leaving substantial schema surface undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Preview or create a recorded workout') and immediately clarifies the dry_run/write distinction. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from update_hevy_workout or create_hevy_routine, but the create-vs-preview framing is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear condition for the write path ('Set dry_run=false to write to Hevy') and a policy constraint ('Only execute a write when the user has requested it'). It stops short of naming alternatives like update_hevy_workout for modifying existing workouts, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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