update-routine

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, or any destructive behavior. No mention of authorization, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving significant ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 three sentences and covers the core action and what can be modified. It is front-loaded and lacks fluff, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 complexity of nested exercise configurations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits update semantics (replace vs merge), error scenarios, and any behavioral contracts, making it hard for an agent to use correctly without assumptions.

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%, yet the description only lists field names without clarifying the complex 'exercises' structure. It does not explain required constraints or the meaning of nested properties, adding minimal value beyond the 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 clearly states 'Update an existing routine by ID' specifying the verb and resource. It lists modifiable fields (title, notes, exercise configurations) and mentions the return of the updated routine, distinguishing from sibling create-routine.

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 usage for modifying existing routines, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for new routines use create-routine) or alternatives like update-workout. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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