tp_create_library_item

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 only says 'save' implying a write operation, but gives no information about auth requirements, idempotency, side effects, return values, or prerequisites. This is a significant transparency 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and immediately communicates the core purpose, though it is so short that it sacrifices substance.

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 9 parameters, 4 required fields, a nested structure object, and no output schema, a one-line description is grossly insufficient. It omits important context such as how sport IDs are resolved, whether the library must already exist, what the response contains, and how this relates to sibling library tools.

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 only 44%, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain required fields like library_id, name, sport_family_id, sport_type_id, or the optional structure object. The description fails to compensate for the schema's incomplete coverage.

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 ('Save a workout template to a library') with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from related siblings like tp_create_workout and tp_create_library. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or edge cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and siblings.

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