create_strength_workout

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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it never edits or replaces an existing workout, and on an ambiguous exercise name it returns the candidate list rather than guessing — an important failure mode to know. This is real context an agent could not derive from `readOnlyHint: false` / `destructiveHint: false` alone.

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 purpose and the one behavioral caveat, then a compact Args block and a single worked example. Every sentence does work — the example is the most efficient way to specify the nested structure.

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 not be described. Between the purpose, the routing to `schedule_workout`/`find_exercises`, the ambiguity behavior, and the full nested-parameter documentation, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: all three params are documented, plus the nested block fields ('exercise', 'sets', 'reps', 'rest_seconds', 'weight_kg') with their defaults, backed by a concrete push-day example. This compensates completely for the empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a strength training workout in Garmin Connect') and rules out editing or replacing existing workouts. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `create_workout`, so an agent still has to infer which creation tool to use for a generic vs. strength workout.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use schedule_workout afterwards to put it on a date so it syncs to the watch' and 'Call find_exercises to search.' These are named alternatives with conditions, not just implied usage.

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