tp_copy_workout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what is copied (structure, description, planned fields) but omits critical details such as whether the copy overwrites an existing workout on the target date, whether comments/files are also copied, or any permission requirements. This is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core action and immediately stating the scope of the copy. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with 4 parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain return values, behavior on conflicts, or prerequisites. It lacks details about what happens after the copy (e.g., whether a new workout ID is returned) and how existing workouts on the target date are handled. More context is needed for an agent to use it safely and effectively.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of parameters, so the description adds little beyond the schema. The phrase 'structure, description, planned fields' helps clarify the meaning of the source workout_id and target_date context, but no additional parameter-specific syntax or format details are provided. 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Copy a workout to a new date.' It specifies the resource (workout) and the action (copy), and distinguishes it from create/update/delete by framing it as a duplication operation. The phrase 'Copies structure, description, planned fields' adds specificity about what is copied, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for duplicating a workout to a different date, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like creating a new workout or scheduling a library workout. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given, so usage context is only implied rather than clearly articulated.

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