smartgym_apply_routine

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes well beyond that by spelling out exactly what destruction occurs: an exercise left out of a passed section is removed, an exercise listed under another section is moved, and omitted sections are untouched. It also explains that dry_run=true previews the plan and sends NOTHING, which is the key safety behavior an agent needs.

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?

Three tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose and then the destructive semantics. The only waste is the `days` sentence, which restates the schema field description almost verbatim.

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 9-parameter destructive tool with an output schema (so return values need no prose), the description covers the highest-risk semantics thoroughly: removals, moves, omitted sections, and dry-run preview. The remaining gap is the unexplained `routine`/`name`/`goal`/`note` parameters and the lack of routing versus update_routine.

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 schema description coverage at 11%, the description must carry the load, and it partially does: it defines the section lists (warmup/main/cooldown), the exercise_id vs catalog-name distinction, the optional rest/note/sets overrides, and the days format. But the required `routine` identifier and the `name`, `goal`, and `note` parameters are never explained in either place.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Rewrite a routine in one go,' which distinguishes it as a bulk-replace operation rather than a single-field edit. However, it never names or contrasts the sibling smartgym_update_routine, so the boundary between the two is left for the agent to infer.

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 example ('week 2 of FB-A') and the section-rewrite semantics imply usage, and dry_run's default preview is documented. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no exclusion or alternative named, which matters given smartgym_update_routine exists as a sibling.

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