Edit an existing COROS workout by creating an updated clone. Replace running or cycling steps while retaining the original unless deletion is requested.
Safely edit a workout by creating an updated clone. For running/cycling, steps can be replaced. The original is retained unless deleteOriginal=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| sport | No | ||
| steps | No | ||
| overview | No | ||
| workoutId | Yes | ||
| deleteOriginal | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the clone-based behavior and explicitly explains what happens to the original ('retained unless deleteOriginal=true'), which is valuable context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so there is no contradiction.
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 two tight sentences with no filler. The most important safety behavior is front-loaded, and each sentence adds necessary information.
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?
The core edit-and-clone behavior and retention rule are clearly covered, but the description does not explain return values, partial-update behavior when only workoutId is supplied, or more details on how step replacement works. With no output schema and a complex steps schema, this is only minimally complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only addresses deleteOriginal and the replaceability of steps. It adds no semantic guidance for name, sport, or overview, leaving much to be inferred from the raw schema.
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 states a specific action ('edit a workout') and the distinctive mechanism ('creating an updated clone'), which clearly separates it from direct-editing, deletion, or duplication siblings. It also includes the critical retention condition that defines the tool's behavior.
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?
It gives some usage context by saying this is a safe edit and that steps can be replaced for running/cycling, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over related tools like update_exercises or duplicate_workout. Alternatives and exclusions are left implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.