update_workout

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses in-place mutation, that omitted fields are left unchanged, that exercises replaces the entire list, that changes are verified by read-back, and what the response carries (hardConstraints, legacyUnreviewed). It omits any statement about permissions/authorization or irreversibility of the overwrite.

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?

Front-loaded with the core semantics (in-place edit, no new slot) and every sentence adds operational value; four sentences is defensible for a mutation with this much semantics. It is dense, with parentheticals doing additional work, but not padded.

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 3-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers mutation semantics, replacement behavior, verification, and even the response payload's notable fields. Remaining gaps are authorization requirements and error/failure modes, which are secondary for correct invocation.

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 0%, yet the description compensates: template_id is explained as code (preferred) or numeric id, exercises is documented as a full-list replacement whose element format matches create_workout, and name falls under the "omitted fields keep their current value" rule. Nested exercise-object shape is only pointed at via another tool rather than described.

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 and resource ("Edit a template in place") and immediately distinguishes the operation from creation with "an edit never uses a new slot." It also names the resource key precisely (template_id as code or numeric id), so an agent can tell it apart from create_workout/delete_workout without opening any schema.

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?

Gives real workflow guidance: "start from get_workout" before supplying exercises, and the read-back + re-check instruction tells the agent how to verify completion. It never explicitly states when *not* to use it (e.g., scheduled vs template edits, or when to prefer create_workout), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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