Update Exercise

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses that lookup is fuzzy-matched by name or exact by id, and it honestly surfaces the known limitation on category/movement pattern. These are genuine behavioral facts beyond what the schema states. It doesn't cover ambiguity or failure behavior when fuzzy-matching, but the key operational traits are disclosed.

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 zero filler: the action and editable fields are front-loaded, the parenthetical adds essential match semantics, and the second sentence states the critical limitation and workaround. Every clause earns its place.

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 6-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description plus schema adequately cover what can be updated, how the target is resolved, and what cannot be changed. The main gap is that neither the description nor an output schema conveys return/confirmation behavior, but nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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% (all six parameters documented, including enum value lists and file constraints), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal parameter-level value by clarifying that the target exercise resolves via fuzzy name match or exact id; the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Updates an existing exercise') and enumerates exactly which fields can change (name, muscle groups, equipment, photo), making the tool's scope unambiguous. This naturally differentiates it from siblings create_exercise and delete_exercise, and the 'exercise' resource separates it from the nutrition and workout-template update tools.

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 description gives an explicit when-not: category and movement pattern can't be changed, and it redirects the agent to the app for those edits. It doesn't explicitly route between create_exercise/delete_exercise, but 'updates an existing' plus the required 'exercise' parameter imply the tool is for modifying already-existing exercises, so the usage context is clear.

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