create_strength_workout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It richly explains how exercises are converted into Garmin steps, how sets are represented as repeat groups, how exerciseName is handled, and how invalid categories are rejected with a 400. This goes well beyond a simple 'create' statement and gives the agent critical expectations about the upload behavior.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by transformation details and then parameter documentation. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the Args section is clearly separated. The length is justified by the complexity of the Garmin-specific behavior it explains.

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 tool with sparse schema, no annotations, and an output schema already available, the description covers all essential aspects: input semantics, nested exercise structure, category validation, and Garmin's handling of set counts and exercise names. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters. It explains name is the workout name and exercises is a list of dicts with keys name, sets, reps, rest_seconds, and optional category, including validation rules and a link to the full category list. This is essential because the schema only says exercises is an array of objects with additionalProperties true.

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 upload it to Garmin Connect.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_run_workout or create_walk_run_workout, and the strength-specific focus is immediately apparent.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the user wants to create and upload a strength workout. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly among the create_*_workout siblings.

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