create-routine-folder

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

The description confirms the tool creates a new resource and returns the full folder details, including the new ID. Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, which is consistent. The description adds value by stating the return expectation, though it does not cover potential side effects like duplicate handling or rate limits.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences (25 words) that are front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds essential information: what it does, the required input, and the output. There is no redundancy or extraneous content.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core aspects: action, input, and expected return. It lacks details about error conditions or uniqueness constraints, but these are not essential for basic usage. The description is adequate for an agent to use the tool 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?

The input schema has a single required parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage. The description explains that the name is for the folder and is required, thus adding meaning beyond the schema. While it does not elaborate on constraints (e.g., uniqueness), it provides sufficient context for the agent to understand the parameter's role.

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 purpose: creating a new routine folder in the Hevy account. It specifies the action ('create'), the resource ('routine folder'), and the scope ('your Hevy account'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create-routine' or 'create-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 explains that the tool is used when you need to create a routine folder, but it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It lacks explicit context about prerequisites or scenarios where other tools (e.g., 'update-routine' or 'get-routine-folders') would be more appropriate.

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