Replaces an existing Hevy routine after fetching it; disabled by default and requires confirmation='CONFIRM' to prevent accidental changes.
Replace an existing routine. Fetch it first; disabled by default; requires confirmation='CONFIRM'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| routine | Yes | ||
| routine_id | Yes | ||
| confirmation | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the 'fetch it first' workflow requirement and the disabled-by-default safety mechanism. It doesn't explain why fetching is needed or what happens to existing data, but it exceeds the annotation baseline.
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?
Extremely concise—three short clauses packed with essential information. The critical safety constraint (CONFIRM) is front-loaded in the final position, and the fetch-before-replace workflow is stated first. No wasted words.
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 destructive tool with an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), the description covers the most critical unknowns: the confirmation string and the fetch-first requirement. However, it doesn't explain what 'disabled by default' means operationally or whether the replacement preserves any data. Adequate but not fully complete.
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. It clarifies the 'confirmation' parameter requires the literal value 'CONFIRM', which is critical since neither schema nor annotations specify this. It doesn't explain routine_id or routine parameters, but the confirmation detail is highly valuable for correct invocation.
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?
States specific verb 'Replace' and resource 'routine', distinguishing it from create_routine via the 'existing' qualifier. Clear what it does, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tool to use for fetching first (get_routine exists in siblings).
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?
Provides clear operational guidance: 'Fetch it first' tells the agent a prerequisite step, and 'disabled by default' hints at a usage constraint. However, it doesn't explain when to replace vs. create a new routine, and doesn't name the specific fetch tool available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.