Update Workout Template

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.