update-workout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the updated workout is returned, but does not clarify whether the update is partial or a full replacement, what happens to omitted exercise data, or any side effects. The phrasing 'You can modify...' implies optionality that conflicts with required schema fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, with no redundant content. It efficiently communicates the key aspects without unnecessary verbosity.

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 is complex (7 parameters, nested exercise array, no annotations, no output schema), but the description is only two sentences. It does not mention required parameters, the structure of exercises, or behavior for omitted fields, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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. It lists parameter names in natural language (title, description, times, privacy, exercise data) but provides no context about required status, formats, or the structure of exercise data. This is insufficient for correct parameter construction.

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 ('Update an existing workout by ID') and specifies the modifiable fields (title, description, start/end times, privacy, exercise data). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create-workout and get-workout by emphasizing 'existing' and 'by 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 makes it clear the tool is for modifying existing workouts, not creating or retrieving. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, relying on the obvious contrast with create-workout and get-workout.

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