create_run_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers. It discloses the external side effect of uploading to Garmin Connect, describes the workout structure, and explains the watch's 'in range' behavior for custom HR ranges. It does not discuss idempotency, duplicate creation, or authentication, but the core behavioral profile is well communicated.

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 appropriately sized for a 7-parameter tool. Every paragraph earns its place: purpose, workout structure, rationale for custom HR ranges, and parameter documentation. The heart-rate zone example is detailed but directly prevents misparameterization, and there is no filler.

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?

Given the bare schema and absent annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the tool's purpose, side effects, workout composition, and all parameters. The main omission is explicit routing among sibling workout-creation tools, but an output schema exists and the core behavior is sufficiently described for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and only bare titles/types, so the description must do the heavy lifting. It fully documents all seven parameters with units, defaults, an example name, and important relationships like 'hr_zone is ignored if hr_min/hr_max are given' and 'hr_min/hr_max must be provided together.' This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 precise action: 'Create a continuous run workout and upload it to Garmin Connect.' It further clarifies the exact structure ('single uninterrupted run interval with warmup and cooldown walks'), which distinguishes it from sibling workout creators like create_walk_run_workout and create_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?

The description gives clear guidance on parameter choice, such as using hr_min/hr_max together when a named zone straddles the desired bpm range. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when this tool should be chosen over create_walk_run_workout or create_z2_walk_workout, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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