execute_exercise_result

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: at most one write, no retries, a reread after the save, and a full status vocabulary (confirmed, rejected, uncertain, stale) with the exact stale triggers (account, gym, or confirmed time zone changed; nothing sent). The no-retry statement is meaningful reinforcement of idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false without contradicting either.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the confirmation gate, then the retry and status behavior. The final status clause is a long semicolon-and-parenthetical run-on, which costs a little readability, but no sentence is filler.

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?

For a non-idempotent write with an output schema, the description covers everything the agent must decide: whether to call at all, that it must not retry, and how to interpret each outcome. Return-value detail is appropriately left to the output schema.

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 50%: 'confirmed' is self-documented, but 'actionReference' has only a hex pattern and no prose. The description compensates by tying the reference to a specific preview from prepare_exercise_result and to the confirmation gate, though it does not say how the reference is obtained or how long it stays valid.

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 and resource ('Save the exact strength result') and anchors it to the sibling that produces the input ('previewed by prepare_exercise_result'), so an agent can distinguish it from the prepare and deletion siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit precondition (only after the account holder explicitly confirmed it) plus an explicit negative case: for an 'uncertain' status, ask the account holder to check their activity instead of saving again. That is a named alternative action and a when-not-to-retry rule.

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