set_plan_targets

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

Given annotations only declare the generic write/openWorld profile, the description adds the crucial safety detail that nothing is persisted unless apply=true and that approval must precede it. It does not state what happens when sets or reps are omitted (leave-unchanged vs clear) or how failures for unknown exercises/days are reported.

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?

Short, front-loaded with the core action, then example, then the preview/apply rule — no filler sentences. Formatting is slightly awkward but every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema, so the description must convey return behavior; it does say a preview is returned, which is the key fact. But a six-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions still leaves `plan` and null-semantics for sets/reps unexplained.

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 must carry all parameter meaning; it explains day, exercise, sets, reps, and apply well. The `plan` parameter is never mentioned, and the 'and/or' phrasing leaves ambiguous whether passing null for sets or reps clears or preserves the existing target.

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?

States a specific verb (change) and specific targets (sets and/or reps) scoped to one exercise in the training plan, which separates it from the add/swap/remove_plan_exercise siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 a concrete example and clarifies the `day` format (name or number), plus a clear two-step workflow: call to get a preview, then re-call with apply=true only after user approval. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative tool, however.

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