health_log_workout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces that actual start/end times are mandatory, but omits the most consequential behavior — that dry_run defaults to true so nothing is written until explicitly set false — leaving that to the schema.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action before the detail-handling and time-requirement notes. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a 10-parameter write tool with 40% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves gaps: the preview-by-default behavior, the idempotency-conflict rejection, and the large exercise_type enum go unmentioned. Adequate, but an agent must read the full schema 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?

With schema description coverage at only 40%, the description compensates partially: it explains that notes carries per-set weight/reps/exercise and that start_time/end_time must be genuine. It says nothing about exercise_type, idempotency_key semantics, dry_run, distance, calories, active_minutes, or display_name, so most parameters remain unexplained by the description.

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 (寫入運動或重訓場次 — write an exercise or weight-training session), which is clearly distinct from the sibling health_log_meal. It does not name or contrast any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of 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?

It gives partial usage guidance by saying where per-set detail belongs (notes) and that real start/end times are required, which implies 'do not fabricate times'. There is no statement of when to use this versus health_update/health_log_meal, or of any prerequisite such as the preview-first workflow.

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