update_routine

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate whether the update is partial or full, what happens to omitted fields, authorization requirements, or any side effects. The nested schema implies a full replacement (title and exercises required), but that is not disclosed in the description.

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 extremely short (six words) and front-loaded, which is efficient in terms of word count. However, it is under-specified: it doesn't include any info about the required routines object or the routineId, making it less useful than a slightly fuller but still concise description.

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?

Given the complexity of the nested 'routine' parameter and the lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, full-vs-partial update semantics, or required field structure. The one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to correctly construct a valid update request.

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 0% because the description names no parameters. The two parameters (routineId and routine) are only defined in the schema, and the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema itself is detailed, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of textual parameter guidance.

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 'Update an existing routine' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (routine), and the context of sibling tools (create_routine, delete_routine, get_routines) makes the distinction apparent. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the routine can be updated or whether it's a full replacement, which would make it even clearer.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisite conditions (e.g., needing an existing routine ID) or contrast with create_routine/delete_routine. The context of siblings is available but the description itself offers no usage direction.

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