Create a library folder or plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with basic side-effect disclosure. It adds context by noting the created object is meant to 'hold reusable workouts,' but it does not reveal any additional behavioral traits such as permission requirements, cascading effects, or response semantics.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the optional plan behavior is efficiently parenthesized rather than expanded unnecessarily.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema, and annotations cover its basic behavioral profile, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. However, given the low schema coverage and the lack of explicit guidance about the kind default and when versus sibling tools to use, the description is adequate but not fully complete on its own.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate for the gap. It hints at the kind parameter by saying 'folder (or a training plan),' but it does not explain the name requirement, the description parameter, or the fact that kind defaults to FOLDER. The description adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema already reveals.

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 states a specific action ('Create'), a resource ('folder' or 'training plan'), and a location ('in the workout library'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes the object from related sibling tools like update_folder by focusing on creation rather than modification.

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 implies when the tool should be used: when creating a library folder or plan. However, it does not explicitly explain when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as create_workouts, apply_plan, or update_folder, so an agent must infer the decision boundary.

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