update_folderRename a workout library folder or plan and update its description directly in Intervals.icu to keep training data organized.
Rename a workout library folder or plan, or change its description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, idempotent), and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no information about partial-update behavior, what happens if the id doesn't exist, or rename-specific side effects. It neither contradicts nor enriches the 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?
A single tightly-written sentence that front-loads the primary action before the secondary one. Economical and readable, though it spends its limited words on the confusing 'or plan' phrase rather than clarifying scope.
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?
An output schema exists so return values are covered, but with 0% param documentation the description must fill the gap. It doesn't state that only the required 'id' is needed for a partial update, whether name and description are independently updatable, or how the folder/plan ambiguity is resolved—leaving a simple tool under-specified.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'name' maps to the rename action and 'description' maps to the change-description action. However, it doesn't clarify the role of 'id' when targeting 'a folder or plan,' leaving the semantics of the one required parameter ambiguous.
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?
Uses a specific verb ('Rename'/'change') with a clear resource ('workout library folder'), and the title reinforces this. However, 'or plan' muddies the target resource—a plan is a distinct entity with its own sibling tools (get_training_plan), so it's unclear whether this tool operates on folders, plans, or both.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings like update_workout, update_event, and create_folder, nothing explains when updating a folder is appropriate, what distinguishes it from updating a plan, or any prerequisites. The context is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.