update_draft_workout

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, idempotent, or destructive. The description adds that it checks a hash before replacing, implying conditional behavior, but does not explain error handling (e.g., if hash mismatch) or what happens to the replaced workout. No output schema is provided to clarify return values.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and a key requirement. However, it could be slightly more structured by listing the fields being replaced.

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 complexity (12 parameters, 7 required, no schema descriptions) and the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description is too sparse. It omits essential context like the need for the plan to be in a draft state, what the hash represents, and the expected return value.

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 should compensate, but it only mentions plan_id, expected_hash, and workout_id. It does not explain the meaning or usage of required parameters like name, description, activity_type, day, or optional ones like tags, time, indoor, target, confirmed.

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 ('replace'), the resource ('one workout on a managed plan'), and a key precondition ('after checking the plan hash'). This differentiates from siblings like add_workout_to_draft and rename_draft_plan.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as add_workout_to_draft for adding new workouts. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the plan must be a draft) or conditions for use.

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