hevy_update_routine

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

With no annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the full-replace destructive nature, the rejection of folder_id (400 error), and the dry-run safety mechanism. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences efficiently cover purpose, key constraints, and safety behavior. Critical information is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

Covers dry-run behavior, auth env var, and the folder_id limitation. No output schema exists, but description does not specify the success response format (probably returns updated routine). Slight gap, but non-critical.

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%, but description adds value by explaining that exercise_template_id is needed and that folder_id is not accepted. However, it does not explain the structure of the routine object or other nested fields (e.g., sets, rep_range). Partially compensates.

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?

Clearly states that the tool performs a full replace (PUT) of a routine, explicitly noting that omitted fields are dropped. Distinguishes from sibling create/get tools by specifying update semantics.

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?

Provides explicit context: mentions dry-run default, env variable for writes, and that folder_id is not accepted. Guides to use hevy_list_exercise_templates for exercise_template_id. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use comparison with similar tools.

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