save_exercise_template

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to repeat those. The description adds value by stating the auth requirement, which is not in annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as what happens if the template already exists, if days are invalid, or if no exercise entries are present. The idempotency hint is not explained in the description. Score 3 is appropriate as the description adds moderate context beyond annotations but lacks full transparency.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds a critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. This is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 that there is no output schema, the description could be more complete by mentioning the expected return value (e.g., success indicator or template ID). However, the operation is a simple save, and the description covers the essential purpose and prerequisite. It is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role, though it lacks edge-case details.

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 both parameters (date and days) are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema carries the full burden.

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 the action ('Save'), the resource ('current day's exercise entries as a template'), and the target ('specified days of the week'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which mention templates. The verb+resource+scope is specific and 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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)'), which helps the agent understand the context. While there are no alternative template tools to differentiate, the description effectively sets the usage context. It could be improved by mentioning when not to use it (e.g., for food templates), but the current guidance is sufficient given the sibling list.

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