update_workout

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description then explains exactly what that destruction means: supplying steps replaces all Steps, omitted fields (cues included) are preserved, and the route is kept. It also warns that externally synced workouts may be overwritten by the next sync and states the return value, which are real behavioral disclosures not in the annotations.

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?

Five tight sentences in a deliberate order: purpose, patch semantics, workflow hint, destructive warning, return value. No filler, and the scoping constraint 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?

For a 7-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, partial-update behavior, the sync overwrite hazard, and the returned object. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely schema-absent semantics: patch-style omission behavior per field, all-or-nothing replacement of steps, route preservation, and that visibility should be public only on request. That is meaningful meaning beyond the schema's per-field type 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?

Names a specific verb (Change) and resource (one of the rider's own Workouts), and the ownership qualifier plus 'only when they ask' distinguishes it from create_workout and delete_workout in the sibling list. An agent can route here without opening any schema.

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?

'Only when they ask' sets a clear activation condition, and 'a get_workout result can be edited and passed back as is' implies the read-then-update workflow against the get_workout sibling. It stops short of explicitly excluding create_workout when no workout exists yet, but the context is unambiguous.

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