Update a library workout

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the key partial-update behavior ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and clarifies that the description parameter uses a specific workout text syntax. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or side effects, but given the annotations, the added behavioral context is sufficient.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the subsequent syntax block is dense but directly necessary for correctly formatting the description parameter. Every sentence adds operational value; there is no 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 tool with 8 parameters and a syntax-heavy description field, the definition covers the main complexity: partial updates, field mappings, and the workout text grammar. The output schema exists, and the annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to call the tool 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 schema description coverage at 50%, the description compensates substantially: it maps 'name, steps, sport, folder' to the relevant parameters and provides a detailed syntax guide for the description parameter, including durations, distances, repeats, sections, power, and unsupported bpm ranges. This goes far beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 opens with 'Change a library workout (name, steps, sport, folder)', giving a specific verb, resource, and the fields affected. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_workouts, duplicate_workouts, and get_workout by scoping it to modifying an existing library workout.

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 conveys that this tool is for modifying an existing library workout and that it performs a partial update ('Only the fields you pass are changed'), so the usage context is implied. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as create_workouts for new workouts or duplicate_workouts for copying, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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