Save Workout Template

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.