garmin_workout_create

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/non-destructive profile is already structured. The description adds useful context beyond that: the workout syncs to a physical watch and optionally lands on the user's calendar. It stops short of saying whether creation is idempotent or what happens on invalid step data.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, optional scheduling, step-encoding rule, plus a routing pointer. The core operation is front-loaded with 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the tricky nested step encoding that the schema alone leaves implicit. The remaining gap is the relationship to garmin_workout_schedule and whether scheduled_date duplicates or replaces that tool's role.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries real weight, and it does explain the two non-obvious parameters: scheduled_date's calendar effect and the required flat-list shape of steps ("5x1km is 5 interval+recovery pairs"). It adds nothing about name or sport, and the nested WorkoutStep fields rely entirely on their in-schema descriptions.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Create a structured workout in Garmin Connect") and adds scope ("ready to sync to the user's watch"). It explicitly distinguishes itself from garmin_workout_update, so an agent can separate create from modify without opening either 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?

It names the alternative for the modify case (garmin_workout_update) and states the condition for calendar placement via scheduled_date. However, it never addresses the sibling garmin_workout_schedule, leaving ambiguous whether an agent should pass scheduled_date here or call the schedule tool separately.

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