hevy_update_workout

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses critical behaviors: full replace semantics, dry-run default (with env var to enable writes), and the absence of a DELETE endpoint. This provides excellent transparency beyond what the schema offers.

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 concise (5 sentences) and front-loads the key replace behavior. It covers essential points without verbosity, though it could be slightly more structured by separating parameter guidance from behavior.

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 complexity (nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all critical aspects: HTTP method, replace semantics, dry-run behavior, template ID source, and notes on API limitations. It is sufficiently complete 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 schema has some descriptions (e.g., ISO-8601 for times, exercise_template_id format), but description coverage is low (0% per context). The description adds value by noting that exercise_template_id can be found via other tools, but does not explain other nested parameters like sets properties. The replace behavior is explained but not parameter-specific.

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?

Description clearly states 'Full replace of a workout (PUT /v1/workouts/{id})' and explains that any field not re-sent is dropped. It distinguishes from potentially confusing partial updates, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the replace behavior and references sibling tools for finding exercise_template_id, guiding parameter preparation. However, it does not explicitly compare to other workout tools (e.g., hevy_create_workout) or state when this tool should be avoided, though the replace semantics imply it's for full updates.

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