create_walk_run_workout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the tool uploads to Garmin Connect and returns a new workout ID, which are the primary side effects and return value. It does not mention potential failure modes or authorization requirements, but the main behavioral traits are transparent.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that convey the purpose and key outputs, followed by a parameter list that adds necessary semantics. No redundant or filler content is present. The structure is clear and easy to scan.

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 moderate complexity (7 parameters) and the existence of a return value (workout ID), the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. It does not describe the output schema, but the returned ID is sufficient for many use cases. It lacks details on error handling or prerequisites, but within the context of sibling tools, it is reasonably complete.

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 titles and types with zero descriptions, so the parameter explanations in the description are essential. Each parameter is given a brief semantic definition (e.g., 'Duration of each run interval in seconds', 'Target heart-rate zone (Z1-Z5, default Z3)'), covering all seven parameters. It lacks constraints like minimum values or exact allowed enum values for hr_zone, but the core meaning is clear.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'walk/run interval workout', and specifies that it uploads to Garmin Connect. The mention of 'walk/run interval' distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_run_workout and create_z2_walk_workout, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative creation tools (e.g., create_run_workout, create_z2_walk_workout) or upload tools. There is no mention of 'use this when...' or 'not for...', leaving the selection criteria implicit.

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