duplicate_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the new workout's startTime default, that it preserves duration/title/exercises/sets, and implies a new record is created without modifying the original. It does not mention return values or edge cases, but covers the essential mutation semantics.

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?

The description is a single well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and uses a backtick for the parameter. Every word contributes 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 the simple two-parameter schema and lack of annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains what is duplicated, the default start behavior, and which fields are preserved. It lacks an explicit statement about the return value or that the original remains unchanged, but these are reasonably inferred.

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. It adds semantics for startTime (defaults to now), but workoutId is only indirectly implied as the existing workout reference. The description does not fully explain all parameters, but the required one is self-explanatory.

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 (duplicate), the resource (an existing workout), and the key result (a new workout preserving specified attributes). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like create_workout and update_workout.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to duplicate an existing workout) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'use create_workout for new workouts' or 'do not use for copying routines.'

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