create-routine

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that the tool returns full routine details including the new routine ID, and gives prerequisites. But it omits error conditions, permissions, or side effects beyond the obvious creation action. This is adequate but not rich.

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 composed of four short, information-dense sentences: the action, the core requirements, an optional parameter, and the return value. There is zero repetition or fluff, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool has a complex nested schema for exercises with many fields and variants (warmup, dropset, repRange, weightKg, etc.). The description gives only high-level guidance and does not address these sub-parameters, nor does it describe the output schema in any detail. Given the complexity, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct a valid request without additional inference.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It does reference title, exercises, and folderId, indicating that title is required, exercises need sets, and folder is optional. However, it does not explain the notes parameter or the nested structure of exercises (e.g., exerciseTemplateId, sets fields, restSeconds, supersetId), leaving key parameter semantics unexplained.

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 uses the specific verb 'create' with the resource 'workout routine' and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update-routine or get-routines. It also specifies the action scope ('in your Hevy account') and states the main outcome.

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 implies when to use the tool by stating requirements (title and at least one exercise with sets) and an optional folder assignment. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for related operations (e.g., update-routine for modifications) or provide clear exclusions, so usage guidance remains implicit.

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