hevy_create_routine

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond the schema: dry-run mode by default, the environment variable HEVY_MCP_ALLOW_WRITES to enable actual writes, and that rep_range is only accepted on routine sets (not workout sets). This compensates for the lack of annotations. It does not mention error handling or response format on success, but the dry-run explanation is valuable.

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 paragraph of 6 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and endpoint. Every sentence adds unique information (required fields, references, set types, dry-run behavior). No redundant or filler 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 complexity (nested object parameter) and missing annotations, the description covers essential usage but leaves gaps: it does not describe the success response format (routinely created object) or error conditions (e.g., duplicate titles, invalid folder_id). The dry-run behavior is well explained, but an agent may need more on what happens after a real write.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains the required outer fields (title, exercises), the need for exercise_template_id, optional folder_id, set types (warmup|normal|failure|dropset), and the rep_range nuance. It does not detail all inner fields like notes or superset_id, but covers the key aspects.

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 (create a routine) and the HTTP method (POST /v1/routines). It lists required fields (title, exercises) and references sibling tools for lookups (hevy_list_exercise_templates, hevy_list_routine_folders), but does not explicitly differentiate from hevy_update_routine or hevy_create_workout beyond noting rep_range usage is routine-only.

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 creating routines and provides prerequisites (exercise_template_id, optional folder_id) with references to sibling tools for discovery. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like hevy_update_routine for modifications or hevy_create_workout for workouts, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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