create-workout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return behavior (complete workout details with new ID) and hints at validation requirements, but it doesn't mention potential failure modes, side effects, or authentication needs. For a mutation tool, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 three concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds critical information: what the tool does, required inputs, and return value. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested exercise structure) and lack of output schema/annotations, the description provides a solid foundation by stating the required inputs and return behavior. It doesn't fully describe nested structure, but the schema supplies the detailed types, so the description is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that start/end times are required and that exercises must include sets, which clarifies the nested exercises structure. However, it doesn't explain optional parameters like isPrivate or description, nor the detailed exercise fields, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('Create a new workout') and the resource ('in your Hevy account'), making the purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from sibling tools like update-workout by explicitly saying 'new workout' and mentioning the return of a newly assigned workout ID.

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 context for when to use the tool by listing required parameters (title, start/end times, at least one exercise with sets), which implies the tool is for creating workouts with those constraints. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough from sibling tools that an agent can infer usage.

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