create_routine

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

Annotations declare non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the created routine starts disabled, a magic confirmation value is required, and retries may duplicate records. The duplication warning reinforces the non-idempotent hint with actionable consequences. It stops short of describing permissions or the returned object.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the two most consequential caveats (disabled state, confirmation requirement) and the retry risk. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the non-obvious operational facts an agent needs before calling. The only omission is the structure/requirements of the 'routine' argument, which the schema does convey structurally even without field descriptions.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it only explains one of the two parameters: confirmation must equal 'CONFIRM'. The large nested 'routine' payload (RoutineInput with title, exercises, sets, etc.) is left entirely to the schema, so compensation is partial at best.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a routine'), which is unambiguous against siblings like list_routines, get_routine, and update_routine. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the create verb is distinct enough that no sibling confusion arises.

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?

It states two hard usage conditions — the routine is disabled by default and confirmation='CONFIRM' is mandatory — which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to use this versus update_routine (e.g., for an existing routine) or create_workout, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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