log_workout

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a genuinely non-obvious trait: entries are always posted with Privacy 'Only Me' and this is hardcoded/not overridable. That is exactly the kind of side effect an agent must know before writing data. It stops short of covering auth requirements, duplicate handling, or what the call returns.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: purpose first, then the critical hardcoded-privacy constraint. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 7-parameter write tool with 5 required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and the privacy side effect but omits permissions/auth requirements and any indication of return value or failure behavior. Adequate minimum, with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 86%, so the parameters are already well documented (reps, weight, dates, movementId source). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond framing the typical case as a 1-rep max, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Log') and resource ('a single-movement result ... to BTWB'), with a concrete example (1-rep max). The 'single-movement' qualifier implicitly separates it from log_rounds_workout, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by 'single-movement result' and the 1-rep max example, which points an agent away from the rounds-based logger. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use, no alternative named, and no prerequisite stated (e.g. that movementId must be obtained via search_movement, which only appears in the schema).

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