Update Hevy Routine

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value on top: 'replace a complete routine, including folder, notes, and all exercises' tells the agent this is a full overwrite rather than a patch, and the dry_run sentence establishes a preview-first workflow. It still does not state explicitly that omitted exercises or fields will be removed, which would have made it a 5.

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: the first defines the operation and its full-replacement scope, the second states the write trigger and the user-intent constraint. The most decision-relevant information, the dry_run gate, is placed prominently and nothing is redundant.

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 no explanation, and the destructive overwrite behavior is covered. However, for a tool with a three-level nested object schema at 0% parameter description coverage, the description leaves the agent without guidance on constructing the exercise set payload or on which routine fields are mandatory. It is adequate but incomplete for the schema's complexity.

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 schema supplies type information only and the description has to carry the meaning. The description does map the routine object to its components (folder, notes, exercises) and explains dry_run's role, which is genuinely useful. It does not document the required title field or the nested per-set fields (reps, weight_kg, rep_range, rest_seconds, superset_id), leaving a meaningful gap against a deeply nested schema.

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 gives a specific verb pair ('preview or replace') and a specific resource ('a complete routine'), and it clarifies the scope of the write: folder, notes, and all exercises. That is clearly distinguishable from a create operation because 'replace' plus the required routine_id signals an existing routine is being overwritten. It stops short of naming siblings such as create_hevy_routine or update_hevy_workout, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 states an explicit operational rule: dry_run=false writes, and a write should only run when the user has requested it. This correctly tells the agent that the default is a preview and that mutation requires user intent. It does not address when to choose this tool over create_hevy_routine or update_hevy_workout, which is why the score is not 5.

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