create_strength_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It covers the create+upload side effect, the conversion of exercises to reps-based steps, how exerciseName is only retained when it matches Garmin's keys, and that invalid categories cause a 400 rejection. It also links to the authoritative category list, which is a strong transparency signal.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by concise behavioral details and an Args block. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the long allowed-category list is linked rather than inlined. The length is justified by the number of constraints the agent must handle.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and a sparse schema, the description is the only guide to correct invocation. It fully specifies the payload shape, category validation, and Garmin's exerciseName behavior. The presence of an output schema means return values need no description, and nothing critical appears 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 coverage is 0% and the schema only defines 'name' and an opaque 'exercises' array. The description compensates fully by specifying the required dict keys (name, sets, reps, rest_seconds, optional category), explaining category omission and allowed values, and documenting the failure mode. This adds essential meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a strength workout') and immediately adds the distinctive behavior 'upload it to Garmin Connect' plus 'Each exercise becomes a reps-based step.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like create_run_workout or create_walk_run_workout, even without naming them.

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 provides detailed parameter constraints but never tells an agent when to prefer this tool over closely related siblings such as create_run_workout, create_walk_run_workout, or upload_workout. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so an agent must infer tool selection entirely from the name.

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