update_workout

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating that the full workout body must be supplied and that this is a full replacement, not a patch. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects on associated data, or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 exceptionally concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, and the second clarifies the replacement semantics. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

This is a complex tool with nested objects, required fields, and no output schema or annotations. The description provides minimal context: it only explains the full replacement nature. It does not mention return values, validation behavior, or any operational context. Given the complexity, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent without sufficient guidance.

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 for the lack of parameter explanations. It only mentions 'full workout body' and 'ID' without detailing the structure or meaning of the parameters. The schema itself provides the details, but the description adds little value beyond what the schema already shows.

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 tool's function: 'Replace an existing workout by ID.' This is a specific verb + resource and distinguishes it from create_workout, get_workout, and other sibling tools. It also clarifies the critical semantic of full replacement vs. patch, leaving no ambiguity about the intended operation.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for full replacement of an existing workout, not a patch. It implies when to use it (when you need to overwrite the entire workout). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., create_workout for new workouts) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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