garmin_workout_update

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes further by explaining the concrete mechanism: Garmin replaces the entire workout, so any step not passed is lost. It also states the compensating benefit that the id and calendar dates survive, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The destructive core behavior and the preserved id/dates are front-loaded, and the read-first pointer is the last thing an agent sees before acting.

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 destructive mutation tool this covers the essentials: what is replaced, what is kept, and how to inspect current state first. Return values are covered by the output schema, and the remaining gap is the unmentioned name/sport semantics.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does partly by establishing that the step list must be COMPLETE rather than a delta. However, it says nothing about the required name parameter or the sport enum, leaving those entirely to the terse schema titles.

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 ("Replace a workout in place") and pins down the scope distinction that matters against siblings: the id and calendar dates are preserved, unlike a create. An agent can distinguish it from garmin_workout_create and garmin_workout_get 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?

Gives explicit routing guidance for the read path: "read it with garmin_workout_get first if needed," naming the sibling and the condition. It does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer garmin_workout_create instead (new workout vs. in-place replacement), which is left to inference.

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