create_running_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the supported building blocks (time/distance/lap-button durations, pace/HR-zone/no-target intensities) beyond the schema. However, for a mutation tool it omits whether the result is persisted but unscheduled, whether it requires authentication, and whether repeat blocks nest arbitrarily — real behavioral gaps.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then defaults, then capabilities. Each sentence contributes distinct information and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description need not cover return values, and the deep nested steps schema is partially summarized. What is missing is the create/schedule lifecycle position relative to schedule_workout and any auth or persistence notes — modest but real gaps for a complex mutation tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of the sport enum values and step structure largely restates schema content, adding little syntax or constraint detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create a structured workout in Garmin Connect') and enumerates what a workout can contain (warmup, intervals, recovery, cooldown, repeat blocks). It does not name or contrast with the closest sibling, schedule_workout, so the create-vs-schedule distinction is left to inference.

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 tells the agent the default sport and how to override it, which is really parameter guidance rather than when-to-use guidance. It never says when to use this tool versus schedule_workout, nor whether the created workout is merely saved or also placed on the calendar — a critical routing question given the sibling set.

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