create_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It does so excellently: 'creates nothing' without confirm, and with confirm=true it 'puts a real workout on their Garmin account and onto their watch.' It also explains the preview behavior, which is far beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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?

Though lengthy, the description is well-structured: purpose statement, Args list, a prominent usage note, and a concrete example. Every section serves a clear purpose and the length is justified given the complexity of the blocks parameter. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (nested blocks structure), the presence of an output schema (though not shown), and the lack of annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, the full input structure, the two-phase invocation pattern, and side effects. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly without external guidance.

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 provides only names and types (0% description coverage), so the description must fully elaborate each parameter. It does: name, blocks with step/repeat structure, constraints (exactly one of duration_s or distance_m), sport options, description, and the critical confirm flag. The extensive example further clarifies the blocks format, adding substantial semantic value beyond 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a structured workout in the athlete's Garmin library.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., delete_workout, get_activity_detail) and accurately conveys the tool's core function.

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 explicit, step-by-step usage guidance: call without confirm first to preview, then call again with confirm=true only after athlete agreement. It clearly states the side effect of the final call. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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