create_workout

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the mandatory preview-then-confirm workflow, rejection of unknown exercise names, and the downstream scheduling/push chain. It does not address what happens on duplicate saves or auth/permission requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four sentences, none wasted. Purpose is front-loaded, then prerequisites, then downstream workflow, then units. Each sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 complex nested-spec tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, prerequisites, and units, while the rich JSON schema handles the spec structure. It could go further on failure/repeat-call behavior given idempotentHint=false, but nothing critical for a correct call 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a compact unit-convention summary (paces as decimal minutes with the 4:30 = 4.5 example, distances in metres, times in seconds) that reinforces and consolidates conventions an agent must get right, adding genuine value over the 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: 'Save a workout to the user's Garmin Connect workout library.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like update_workout, delete_workout, and preview_workout, and an agent can tell it apart without opening any schema.

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 names prerequisites (only after a confirmed preview_workout of the same spec, look up exercise names with search_exercises), a failure condition (unknown name rejected), and the follow-up alternatives (schedule_workout, push_workout_to_device). This is textbook when-to-use guidance with named siblings.

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