save_strength_workout_template

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

The warning 'This persists to the library indefinitely' goes beyond the annotations, disclosing a long-term side effect. It also explains the contrast with schedule_strength_workout ('leaves no library residue'), giving the agent a clear mental model of the persistence behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 slightly long but every sentence earns its place: the warning, conditional usage rule, alternative tool reference, and clarification prompt are all high-signal. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured with clear sections.

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 mutation side effect and the existence of a close sibling, the description fully covers when to use it, when not to, what to do on ambiguity, and the persistence consequences. The presence of an output schema means details about return values are not required in the description.

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 coverage is 100% and the input schema provides rich descriptions for all parameters, including detailed subsemantics for the exercises array. The tool description itself does not add parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb+resource+destination: 'Save a REUSABLE strength workout TEMPLATE to the Coros library.' It distinguishes this tool from schedule_strength_workout by emphasizing persistence and reuse, so the agent knows exactly what it does and how it differs from siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use ONLY when the user explicitly asks to save as a template...' It names the alternative schedule_strength_workout for one-off workouts, and instructs the agent to ask the user if intent is unclear. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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