Add workouts to the library

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

Annotations already declare the mutating and open-world profile. The description adds valuable behavioral specifics: a per-call limit of 50, a validation result (workout_check), and the recommendation to use update_workout for warnings. It also documents the exact syntax rules, which is essential. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but every sentence carries necessary detail for correct usage. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then dives into syntax rules. No redundant phrasing; it's dense but efficient for the complexity involved.

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 has an output schema, so return values need not be explained here. The input schema is nested and complex; the description covers the most error-prone part (text syntax) and gives operational guidance (limit, validation, follow-up). An agent has enough 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?

With medium schema coverage (~50%), the description compensates heavily by explaining the workout text syntax for the 'description' parameter, which is the most complex field. It also clarifies that '400m' means 400 minutes, not meters. Other params like folder_id and type are covered in the schema, so the added value is appropriately concentrated.

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 'Save reusable workouts in a library folder or plan' with a limit, specifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from update_workout by mentioning fixing warnings with that tool, so the agent knows this is the creation half of a create/fix pair.

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 tells when to use this tool (for saving reusable workouts) and gives follow-up guidance: check workout_check in the result and use update_workout to fix warnings. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives to avoid using, but the context is clear enough that an agent won't mistakenly choose a sibling like create_folder.

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