smartgym_update_routine

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the two-phase dry-run default that previews old → new without sending, versus dry_run=false which snapshots, sends, and verifies server-side, plus the name-collision constraint.

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?

Front-loaded with the edit scope, then grouped into the days format and the dry-run contract. Every sentence carries information; the only slight redundancy is repeating the weekday mapping already in the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the dry-run workflow is fully covered. The remaining gap is how the required `routine` argument is identified and how errors surface on a name collision.

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 only 17% (only `days` is documented), so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the 1=Sunday…7=Saturday numbering, the comma-separated format, the "" clear semantics, and the dry_run default/toggle. It still leaves the `routine` identifier format and name/goal/note semantics to inference.

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 (Edit) plus the resource (a routine) and enumerates the editable fields (name, days, goal, note), which cleanly separates it from siblings like smartgym_update_exercise or smartgym_reorder_routine.

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?

Gives clear operating context: only passed fields change, empty string clears, and dry_run=true is the default and sends nothing. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the field-scoped framing makes the boundary with update_exercise implicit and safe.

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