update-routine

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns the updated routine and can modify title, notes, and exercise configurations, but does not clarify whether it performs partial or full updates, whether routineId must exist, or any side effects. This leaves important behavioral aspects ambiguous.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It is efficiently structured and free of unnecessary detail.

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 (4 params, a nested exercises array) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the exercise configuration structure, whether updates are partial or full, or any required prerequisites. The return behavior is mentioned, but other critical context for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It mentions 'title, notes, and exercise configurations' which maps to the title, notes, and exercises parameters, but does not explain their structure, constraints, or optionality. The routineId is implied by 'by ID' but not explicitly described. This is insufficient given the complex exercises array.

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 tool updates an existing routine by ID, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create-routine and get-routine by focusing on modifying existing routines and listing the modifiable aspects (title, notes, exercise configurations).

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 usage when you have an existing routine ID and want to modify it, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create-routine or update-workout. It lacks exclusions or specific context cues that would fully guide the agent.

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