Duplicate any COROS library workout. Optionally rename it, update its description, and schedule the new copy directly.
Duplicate any COROS library workout. Optionally rename it, change its description, and schedule the copy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| newName | No | ||
| overview | No | ||
| workoutId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that a copy is created, the original is not modified, and optional rename/description/scheduling side-effects can be applied. This is meaningful for a mutation tool, though it does not mention authentication requirements or return behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence covers the purpose and all optional behaviors with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick agent parsing.
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 relatively simple duplicate operation, the description covers the main action and all optional behaviors. The missing explicit mention of workoutId as the source identifier is a gap, but the required schema field mitigates it somewhat. Not having an output schema is acceptable here since the tool's effect is the created copy.
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 carries the parameter-documentation burden. It maps newName to 'rename it', overview to 'change its description', and date to 'schedule the copy', but it never explicitly identifies the required workoutId parameter as the workout being duplicated, leaving the most important parameter under-specified.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Duplicate any COROS library workout' - this clearly distinguishes the tool from create/update/delete siblings. The optional rename, description change, and scheduling are explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 phrase 'Duplicate any COROS library workout' implies the use case of copying an existing workout, but it never explicitly contrasts with create_workout, update_workout, or other sibling alternatives. No when-not-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.