Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• delete_exerciseA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose the fuzzy-match-by-name behavior, which is useful, but it omits critical traits for a destructive operation: irreversibility, permission requirements, and potential side effects on exercise history. The match ambiguity risk is also unaddressed.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and matching logic without any wasted words. Every element earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core call mechanics. However, because there are no annotations, a destructive delete operation would benefit from explicit statements about irreversibility or data impact. The description is minimally sufficient but leaves meaningful gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already fully documented in the input schema. The description's matching behavior aligns with the schema example but doesn't add new parameter-level meaning beyond what's already present.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Deletes') with a clear resource ('exercise from the user's library') and adds distinct matching semantics ('fuzzy-matched by name, or exact by id'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like create_exercise and update_exercise.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The usage context is implied rather than explicit: it's obvious you use this to delete an exercise, but the description doesn't mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives. No exclusions or routing guidance is provided.

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

• update_nutrition_mealA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavior: the update is scoped to a single meal and does not regenerate surrounding content. However, it omits other consequential details such as whether changes are persisted immediately, how meal/day matching works, or what happens if the specified meal is not found.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences with no filler. The operation, scope, and representative examples are all front-loaded, and every phrase contributes to an agent's ability to recognize and invoke the tool correctly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is helpful but not fully complete. It covers what can be updated and at what scope, but does not explain return behavior, error cases, or how partial updates interact with existing meal fields, which an agent may need to know for correct invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema already describes 7 of 11 parameters, and the description groups the remaining numeric macro parameters under the word 'macros,' adding only generic meaning. It does provide useful high-level framing that all listed fields are adaptable, but it does not add detail beyond the schema for ambiguous cases like whether values are replacements or deltas.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description opens with a specific verb, 'Adapts', and names the exact resource: a single meal's recipe, ingredients, instructions, macros, and/or time within the active nutrition plan. It explicitly distinguishes the tool's scope by noting it does not regenerate the rest of the day or week, and examples clarify common use cases.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives clear context for when to use the tool, including example user requests and the qualifier 'within the active nutrition plan.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as update_nutrition_day or update_nutrition_plan, but the meal-level scope and 'without regenerating the rest' strongly imply the boundary.

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

• create_exerciseA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers a genuinely valuable disclosure: the category/movement pattern aren't set and default to compound/push until edited in the app. This is exactly the kind of surprising post-condition an agent would otherwise only discover at runtime. It omits return value and sync behavior, but the core quirk is covered.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences with the core action front-loaded and the essential caveat placed second. Every sentence earns its place; the limitation note prevents a false expectation and would be costly to omit.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The combination of a purpose-stating description, the known-limitation disclosure, and 100%-coverage rich schema makes the tool safely callable with no surprises. The only material gap is that no output schema exists and the description doesn't hint at what it returns (e.g., created exercise ID), which an agent may want before chaining update_exercise or delete_exercise.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself is unusually rich — examples for name, allowed-value lists for equipment and muscleGroups, an invalid-value rejection note, and format/size constraints for photoPath. The description adds only 'optionally with a photo,' which the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  'Adds a new exercise to the user's library' states a specific verb and resource with clear scope. The word 'new' combined with the sibling set (update_exercise, delete_exercise, get_exercise_library) makes the create-vs-modify distinction unambiguous without needing to name a sibling.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Usage is implied — this tool creates, while update_exercise modifies and delete_exercise removes — and the sibling names provide contrast, but the description never explicitly states when to use this versus an alternative. The limitation note gives context but no routing guidance.

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

• save_periodization_planA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary side effect (creating a cycle), the optional linking of templates, and a known limitation: the training phase is not set by this tool and must be edited from the app. This goes beyond a bare 'saves a plan' statement. It does not mention return value or error behavior, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the limitation note is appended as a concise, clearly marked caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the simple 5-parameter schema with full descriptions and the absence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for invoking the tool correctly. It covers purpose, optional behavior, and a significant limitation. It would benefit from a brief note on what happens after creation or what the tool returns, but this is not critical for correct invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description paraphrases some schema details (e.g., named block, start/end date, linking existing templates) but does not add materially new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents for each of the five parameters.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a specific verb ('Creates'), a concrete resource ('a periodization cycle'), and clarifies what that resource is ('a named training block... with a start/end date'). It also distinguishes this from related save tools by explaining that it optionally links existing workout templates, so an agent can tell it apart from save_workout_template.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies when to use the tool: to create a periodization cycle and optionally attach existing templates. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, nor does it name alternative tools such as save_workout_template for creating templates from scratch. The context is clear enough for basic selection, but exclusions are left to inference.

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

• get_exercise_historyA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns all logged sets for the exercise, orders them most recent first, and is a read operation implied by 'Returns'. Minor details like empty-result behavior are not covered, but the core behavior is transparent.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core behavior ('Returns every logged set') before stating ordering and purpose. Every clause contributes information and there is no filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a two-parameter read-only tool with complete schema descriptions, the description provides the key context: scope, ordering, and intended use. It does not specify exact response fields or explicitly contrast with get_workout_history, but the missing pieces are minor given the schema and naming.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents exerciseName and limit. The description adds contextual meaning for exerciseName by tying it to a specific movement and progression tracking, but it does not need to add further parameter-level detail.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('every logged set for one specific exercise') and adds the ordering ('most recent first') and analytical intent ('progression (reps/weight trend)'). This distinguishes it from broader history tools like get_workout_history.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description clearly states when to use the tool: when you need exercise-specific history to see progression over time. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the single-exercise focus supplies clear context for selecting it over sibling tools.

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

• get_workout_historyA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that only completed sessions are returned, that every exercise and set is included, that results are newest first, and that difficultyRating is a 1-5 user-reported value available only sometimes. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it stops short of describing the full return envelope or pagination.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences, starts with the core result immediately, and each clause earns its place: scope, ordering, use case, and rating semantics. No filler or redundant restatement.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple single-parameter read tool, the description is largely complete: it covers what is returned, the ordering, the time window, and the meaning and use of difficultyRating. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the session object structure could help, but the low complexity and full parameter schema make this a minor gap.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, with the days parameter already described as 'How many days back to look.' The description adds the interpretation 'from the last N days' and 'newest first,' which slightly enriches the semantics, but the schema already carries most of the parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Returns completed workout sessions (with every exercise and set) from the last N days, newest first.' It clearly differs from siblings like get_exercise_history or analyze_training_volume by emphasizing completed sessions with full set detail and recency ordering, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to see what the user actually did recently.' It also suggests combining it with volume/reps trends to judge intensity or volume changes, providing practical context. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but the primary usage is clear.

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

• update_exerciseA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses that lookup is fuzzy-matched by name or exact by id, and it honestly surfaces the known limitation on category/movement pattern. These are genuine behavioral facts beyond what the schema states. It doesn't cover ambiguity or failure behavior when fuzzy-matching, but the key operational traits are disclosed.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences with zero filler: the action and editable fields are front-loaded, the parenthetical adds essential match semantics, and the second sentence states the critical limitation and workaround. Every clause earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a 6-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description plus schema adequately cover what can be updated, how the target is resolved, and what cannot be changed. The main gap is that neither the description nor an output schema conveys return/confirmation behavior, but nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100% (all six parameters documented, including enum value lists and file constraints), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal parameter-level value by clarifying that the target exercise resolves via fuzzy name match or exact id; the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Updates an existing exercise') and enumerates exactly which fields can change (name, muscle groups, equipment, photo), making the tool's scope unambiguous. This naturally differentiates it from siblings create_exercise and delete_exercise, and the 'exercise' resource separates it from the nutrition and workout-template update tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives an explicit when-not: category and movement pattern can't be changed, and it redirects the agent to the app for those edits. It doesn't explicitly route between create_exercise/delete_exercise, but 'updates an existing' plus the required 'exercise' parameter imply the tool is for modifying already-existing exercises, so the usage context is clear.

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

• update_nutrition_planA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the in-place nature of the update and reassures that days and meals are untouched. However, it does not describe what happens if no active plan exists, whether fields are merged or fully replaced, or what the response looks like, leaving some uncertainty.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the action, names the target, enumerates the permissible fields, and states the exclusion boundary. Every clause contributes necessary information with no filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core context: what is updated, at what level, and what is explicitly left alone. It omits edge cases like an absent active plan or exact merge/replace behavior, but it is reasonably complete for a simple metadata update tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing all four parameters and using 'and/or' to signal that any subset may be provided, which reinforces the schema's zero required fields and clarifies partial-update semantics.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Adapts') and a specific resource ('active nutrition plan'), then enumerates the exact metadata fields involved. It also explicitly excludes days and meals, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_nutrition_day and update_nutrition_meal.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description clearly scopes this tool to plan-level metadata and states that it does not touch days or meals, implying that day/meal-level changes belong to sibling tools. It does not explicitly name those alternatives or give a hard when-not-to-use rule, but the active-plan qualifier and exclusion provide practical guidance.

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

• update_workout_template_nameA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses in-place mutation, the matching behavior (fuzzy by name or exact by id), and the explicit side-effect of not touching exercises. It doesn't mention failure modes or conflict handling, but the core behavioral traits relevant for an agent are present.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two crisp clauses covering action, scope, and behavior. No fluff, no repetition of schema fields. Every word earns its place and the core action is front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple two-parameter rename tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what the tool does, how matching works, and what it will not affect. It stops short of specifying return values or conflict behavior, but those aren't necessary given the operation's simplicity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining how the 'template' parameter is interpreted (fuzzy-matched by name, exact by id), which goes beyond the schema's simple 'name or id' note. This extra semantics helps with correct invocation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Description uses a specific verb ('Renames'), names the exact resource ('existing workout template'), and adds a crucial scope qualifier ('Doesn't touch its exercises'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling update_workout_template, which presumably updates other template aspects.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage: use when you need to rename a workout template without affecting its exercises. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over update_workout_template, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The 'doesn't touch its exercises' gives a hint but isn't an explicit routing instruction.

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

• get_recovery_statusA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Returns' signals a read-only operation, and the description specifies exactly what information the caller receives. It does not discuss side effects or auth, but for a simple status getter this is sufficient.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  One compact sentence states the output and the purpose without any filler. The most important information ('Returns...') is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the core return values and frames the intended use. The optional filter is already fully documented in the input schema, so nothing needed to make a correct call is missing.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% for the single optional muscleGroup parameter, and the schema already explains the filter and cites get_exercise_library for valid values. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names a distinct resource ('recovery status') with concrete output data: days since each muscle group was last trained and sets trained this week. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_workout_history or analyze_training_volume, which address different questions.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives an explicit use case ('judge whether a muscle group is ready to train again'), which makes the intended context clear. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

• get_training_preferencesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and largely carries it well: it discloses the complete return payload and implies a read-only nature through 'Returns'. It does not cover edge-case behavior such as what happens when the profile is incomplete or not yet set up, but for a parameterless getter the content disclosure is the dominant behavioral trait and it is thoroughly covered.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage directive placed second, where it reinforces the tool's role in a workflow. The first sentence is a dense run-on enumeration, but every listed field earns its place because there is no output schema to carry that information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a low-complexity tool (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description compensates well: the exhaustive field enumeration stands in for an output schema, and the usage guidance covers when to call it. Minor gaps remain — behavior on missing profiles, staleness/caching, and scope confirmation — but nothing that would prevent an agent from invoking it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to explain — the baseline of 4 applies. The phrase 'the user's' implicitly clarifies the tool targets the current authenticated user, which adds a small touch of meaning beyond the empty schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Returns the user's full profile') and then enumerates the exact content in three well-bounded categories (training preferences, body/personal info, food preferences). This clearly differentiates it from sibling getters like get_workout_history, get_workout_templates, and get_exercise_history, which target narrower slices of data.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Gives explicit, actionable timing guidance: 'Always check this before generating a workout AND before generating or adapting a nutrition plan' and cross-references save_nutrition_plan for the downstream workflow. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or named alternatives for non-generating scenarios, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

• get_workout_templatesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the round-trip data contract ('Each slot comes back in exactly the shape save_workout_template/update_workout_template accept') and warns that the update tool replaces the entire exercise list. It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or clarify empty-result behavior, but 'Returns' plus the workflow context is a strong disclosure.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is three sentences with the main action front-loaded. The middle sentence is dense but packs the full data contract, and the final sentence gives actionable workflow guidance. There is no fluff, though the second sentence is slightly long.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  There is no output schema, so the description compensates by detailing what is returned and by referencing the exact shape that save/update accept, giving the agent a precise expectation of the response. It could mention what happens when no templates exist or how multiple templates are ordered, but for a read tool with one optional parameter, it is largely complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter already well documented (optional single template by fuzzy-matched name or id; omit to return all). The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('the user's saved workout templates') and enumerates the exact contents: full ordered exercise lists with target sets/reps/rest, tempo, intensity, suggested weight, and superset grouping. It also distinguishes itself from the update tool by positioning itself as the read step before a destructive update.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly says 'Use this before update_workout_template' and explains why: that tool replaces the whole exercise list, so the current state is needed first. It also references the shape accepted by save_workout_template/update_workout_template, making the intended read-modify-write workflow unambiguous.

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

• analyze_training_volumeA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains what the tool computes, the time window applied, and the grouping options. It does not mention output format or behavior with no data, but the core read-only aggregation behavior is transparently described.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the computation and grouping options; the second provides the practical use case. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple read-only aggregation tool with two optional, well-named parameters, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit statement of the return shape, but the aggregation semantics strongly imply what the output contains.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is only 50%, but the description compensates by defining 'last N days' for the days parameter and enumerating 'muscle group or exercise' for groupBy. This adds enough semantic meaning beyond the bare schema for both optional parameters.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Aggregates') with a clear resource ('sets/reps/volume over the last N days') and defines the grouping dimensions ('muscle group or by exercise'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling history-retrieval and update tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to spot over/under-trained muscle groups before proposing a workout.' It provides a clear use context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative tool.

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

• save_nutrition_planA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly reveals the destructive replacement behavior — 'REPLACES whatever plan currently exists (deleting it and its days/meals)' — and the exactly-one-active-plan invariant. It doesn't mention return values or error conditions, but the critical mutation semantics are transparent.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences with the most critical fact — replacement/deletion — front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence is dense but every clause earns its place: usage distinction, alternatives, and prerequisite checks. No filler or redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description covers the destructive behavior, when to use it, and prerequisite data to gather. It does not explicitly warn that sending a partial days array could replace a full existing plan with an incomplete one, even though the schema says 'The full week' — a meaningful edge case for correct invocation. Overall strong, with one notable gap.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description doesn't add parameter-level syntax or field details beyond the schema, though it does add contextual meaning about the plan reflecting the user's training and goals. This is useful but doesn't go beyond what schema descriptions already provide.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Creates the week's nutrition plan.' It also clearly differentiates from siblings by explicitly noting that this tool REPLACES the existing plan rather than creating a second one, and names the update_nutrition_* tools for tweaks. An agent can immediately tell when this tool is the right choice.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this to generate/regenerate the whole week; for smaller tweaks, prefer update_nutrition_meal / update_nutrition_day / update_nutrition_plan so the rest of the week isn't thrown away. It also instructs checking get_training_preferences and ideally get_workout_history/get_recovery_status before calling, covering prerequisite context.

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

• save_workout_templateA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a creation operation, requires pre-existing exercises, and warns that creating a duplicate and deleting the old template loses its link to past workouts. It does not cover auth/permissions or error behavior, but the most important non-obvious consequence is surfaced.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Three sentences, each with a clear job: defining what the tool creates, stating prerequisites, and explaining the alternative. The operative action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description covers prerequisites, the primary alternative, and an important behavioral warning, which is strong for a create tool without annotations or an output schema. It could go further on response behavior or duplicate-name handling, but the detailed input schema covers the parameter-level context needed to call it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds a high-level summary of optional exercise fields like tempo/cadence, intensity, suggested weight, and superset grouping, but it does not add semantic depth beyond what the schema already provides.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description opens with 'Creates a NEW workout template' and defines the resource as a reusable training session blueprint. It clearly distinguishes this from updating an existing template by explicitly naming update_workout_template as the alternative.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  It states the prerequisite that exercises must already exist and points to get_exercise_library or create_exercise. It also gives an explicit when-not-to-use this tool: changing an existing template should use update_workout_template instead, with a concrete consequence of doing it incorrectly.

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

• delete_nutrition_planA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the destructive scope by stating that all days and meals are removed along with the plan, which is significant. It stops short of irretrievability or permission requirements, but the core destructive nature is well conveyed.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  A single, front-loaded sentence that succinctly states the action and its scope. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff or repetitive phrasing.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what the tool does and what will be removed. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without needing more detail.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  There are zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. With no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; no additional parameter meaning is needed.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Deletes') and a clear resource ('the active nutrition plan'), and further specifies the scope ('and all its days/meals'). This makes it readily distinguishable from sibling tools like update_nutrition_plan or delete_workout_template.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description makes the tool's purpose explicit, so when an agent needs to remove the active nutrition plan, the usage context is clear. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the deletion wording provides enough contextual direction.

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

• delete_workout_templateA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states what gets destroyed (template and exercise slots) and what is preserved (history/sessions). It does not mention response/confirmation or irreversibility, but the word 'Deletes' plus the scope statement provides solid transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and scope, the second states the key exclusion. The most important behavior is front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a one-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the affected data, and the preserved data. An agent can call it correctly without needing additional context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema already documents the single parameter at 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that the name is fuzzy-matched while ids are exact, which clarifies how the 'template' string is interpreted.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Deletes a workout template and its exercise slots'. It also states the matching mechanism (fuzzy by name or exact by id), which makes it distinguishable from sibling deletion tools like delete_exercise and delete_nutrition_plan.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives clear context for the deletion scope and explicitly says it does not delete workout history/sessions, which helps the agent decide when not to use it. It does not name alternatives such as delete_exercise, but the resource distinction is enough for most routing.

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

• get_exercise_libraryA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does this excellently by warning that `category` and `movementPattern` are often null or unreliable, explaining that defaults like 'compound'/'push' are common, and instructing the agent to infer movement patterns from the exercise name and muscleGroups instead.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Each sentence earns its place: the first defines the return content, the second gives the use case, and the third provides a critical data-reliability caveat. The most important operational guidance about unreliable fields is placed at the end but remains tightly scoped and relevant.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers the essential context: what data is returned, why to call it, and how to interpret unreliable fields. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents `equipment` and `muscleGroup` as comma-separated filter examples. The description adds only 'optionally filtered' and does not contribute additional parameter-level semantics, which is acceptable given the schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Clearly states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('the user's exercise library') plus the exact data fields included. The phrase 'optionally filtered' and the use-case hint ('when proposing a workout') make it easy to distinguish from sibling history and template tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides clear usage context: 'Use this to know what exercises/equipment are available when proposing a workout.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended scenario is described well enough for an agent to select it.

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

• get_nutrition_planA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this returns only the single active plan, that it can return null when none exists, and that it includes full recipe details. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'Returns' and the tool name imply a read operation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  A single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the single active nutrition plan') before expanding with useful detail about the returned data and the null case. Every element earns its place and nothing is wasted.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, explains the returned structure, lists the content categories, and handles the not-yet-generated case. An agent can invoke it without further clarification.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has no parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description adequately covers this aspect by focusing entirely on the return value rather than adding redundant parameter details.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('the single active nutrition plan'), and clarifies scope ('single active') and result content. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling nutrition plan tools that create, update, or delete plans.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description makes the retrieval purpose clear and specifies what the tool returns, so when an agent needs the currently active nutrition plan this is the obvious choice. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling list and 'active' qualifier supply enough context.

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

• update_nutrition_dayA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the meal list is replaced and that other days are unaffected, which covers the most important side effects. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or return behavior, which prevents a higher score.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences with no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the sibling alternative is placed at the end where it naturally supports decision-making without distracting from the primary purpose.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is updated, what is replaced, and what is left untouched, while the input schema fully documents parameters. It could be more complete by stating the return/success behavior or the prerequisite that an active nutrition plan must exist, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping 'rename/re-note it, and/or replace its whole meal list' to the title, notes, and meals parameters, and by clarifying that these operations can be combined with 'and/or.' This exceeds baseline without duplicating schema details.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific action ('Adapts one day of the active nutrition plan') and enumerates the exact update operations: rename/re-note and replace the meal list. It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling update_nutrition_meal, so the tool's purpose is unmistakable.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description states clearly when to use this tool (whole-day changes) and when not to ('Use update_nutrition_meal instead for a single-meal tweak'). It also adds a scope boundary: 'without touching other days,' giving an agent explicit routing and safety guidance.

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

• update_workout_templateA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses in-place mutation, that the template itself survives to preserve history/periodization links, and the critical destructive behavior that exercises REPLACES the entire list with existing slots deleted first. It also instructs the agent to call get_workout_templates first, which is essential operational context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is longer than average, but each component earns its place: the examples clarify intent, and the IMPORTANT warning prevents a destructive mistake. It is well-structured into distinct sections, though slightly verbose.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  At 4 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers all critical context: what the tool mutates, the replace semantics, prerequisite actions, and how to avoid data loss. No essential operational information is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical value beyond the schema by telling the agent to fetch the current list and send it back unchanged except for edits, and by clarifying that omitting exercises changes only name/duration. This operational guidance exceeds what the schema provides.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states a specific verb ('Edits'), a resource ('existing workout template in place'), and the exact scope of edits (name, estimated duration, exercises). It also distinguishes this tool from the delete_workout_template + save_workout_template flow, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives explicit usage context with concrete example requests ('swap the first three exercises...') and explicitly recommends this tool over delete_workout_template + save_workout_template. However, it does not mention the sibling update_workout_template_name as an alternative when only renaming is needed, so differentiation is not complete across all alternatives.

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