Update workout session

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

Annotations already declare the operation is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive, so the description does not need to restate these. It adds a field-scoping constraint by listing allowed keys, which is useful, but it does not explain patch semantics such as merge vs replace or whether unknown keys are rejected.

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 lean sentence followed by the allowed-key list, with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and every element earns its place.

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 required session_id + patch shape and allowed keys are enough to construct a basic call, and an output schema exists to describe results. However, the description omits patch-merge semantics and any usage exclusions, which are meaningful for an update operation and are not covered by annotations or schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the generic patch/additionalProperties schema. Listing the allowed keys (date, duration_sec, status, etc.) gives real meaning to the patch parameter. It does not detail value formats or constraints for individual keys, and session_id is left to inference from its name.

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 names a specific verb ('Fix') and resource ('session-level fields'), and enumerates the exact keys that can be updated, so an agent can immediately recognize what the tool does. It also contrasts with the sibling update_set by scoping to session-level rather than set-level data.

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 phrase 'session-level fields' implies the tool is for correcting/updating session data rather than logging a new session or updating sets, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling alternatives are named. Usage must be inferred from the field list.

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