tp_update_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 'edit,' implying mutation, but does not explain whether this is a partial or full update, what fields are affected, or any side effects like overwriting existing data. This is completely inadequate for a 10-parameter 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 one short sentence with no fluff, which is concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimally informative. It is not verbose, but it also doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful details, so it sits at a mid-level.

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 complex tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely inadequate. It does not explain what a workout template is, how to identify items, or which fields can be edited. The agent would be left guessing about most of the tool's behavior and requirements.

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 20%, yet the description itself mentions none of the parameters or their meanings. It adds no value beyond the sparse schema, leaving most parameters (tss, structure, duration_hours, etc.) unexplained. The agent gets no help understanding what fields are editable or how they relate to the template.

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 'Edit a workout template' clearly identifies a verb ('edit') and a resource ('workout template'), which maps to the library item concept in the tool name. It helps distinguish from sibling update tools like tp_update_workout, which likely targets scheduled workouts rather than templates. However, 'workout template' is not explicitly defined and could be 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tp_update_workout or tp_create_library_item. It also omits prerequisites like the existence of the library or item. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing when it's appropriate.

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