Create Exercise

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers a genuinely valuable disclosure: the category/movement pattern aren't set and default to compound/push until edited in the app. This is exactly the kind of surprising post-condition an agent would otherwise only discover at runtime. It omits return value and sync behavior, but the core quirk is covered.

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?

Two sentences with the core action front-loaded and the essential caveat placed second. Every sentence earns its place; the limitation note prevents a false expectation and would be costly to omit.

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 combination of a purpose-stating description, the known-limitation disclosure, and 100%-coverage rich schema makes the tool safely callable with no surprises. The only material gap is that no output schema exists and the description doesn't hint at what it returns (e.g., created exercise ID), which an agent may want before chaining update_exercise or delete_exercise.

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 100%, and the schema itself is unusually rich — examples for name, allowed-value lists for equipment and muscleGroups, an invalid-value rejection note, and format/size constraints for photoPath. The description adds only 'optionally with a photo,' which the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

'Adds a new exercise to the user's library' states a specific verb and resource with clear scope. The word 'new' combined with the sibling set (update_exercise, delete_exercise, get_exercise_library) makes the create-vs-modify distinction unambiguous without needing to name a sibling.

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?

Usage is implied — this tool creates, while update_exercise modifies and delete_exercise removes — and the sibling names provide contrast, but the description never explicitly states when to use this versus an alternative. The limitation note gives context but no routing guidance.

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