tp_update_workout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavioral pattern: fetches existing data, merges updates, and saves. This tells the agent the tool performs a partial update and doesn't overwrite unspecified fields. Missing details include error handling, permission requirements, and idempotency, but the merge explanation is valuable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds critical behavioral detail without fluff. Every word earns its place, making it concise and readable.

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 an 18-parameter update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It explains the merge behavior and structure formats but omits return values, error scenarios, required permissions, and the full scope of updatable fields. This is adequate but leaves significant gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 description does not compensate. It clarifies the structure parameter and structured_workout payload relation, but leaves many fields (e.g., distance_km, tss_planned, duration_minutes) without added meaning beyond the schema. The description should explain more about key parameters or reference to tp_create_workout for structure, but it doesn't.

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 tool updates fields of an existing workout, with a specific verb (update) and resource (workout). It distinguishes from siblings like tp_create_workout, tp_delete_workout, and tp_copy_workout by targeting existing workouts and describing a merge-save process.

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 provides clear usage context: it updates existing workouts, supports two structure formats (simplified and native), and performs a fetch-merge-save cycle. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives for editing (e.g., create if the workout doesn't exist), though the existing-workout wording implies it.

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