create_workout

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (write operation) but the description adds valuable nuances: confirm=false produces a non-mutating response while confirm=true performs the actual creation. The 'only after the user explicitly approves' instruction adds safety-relevant context beyond what structured annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose first, then the confirm flow. Zero filler, every sentence earns its place. The critical safety caveat (only confirm=true after explicit approval) is positioned right after the purpose.

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 output schema exists (so return values needn't be described), this is nearly complete. The confirm flow and date format are covered. The workout structure is handled by the extensively documented nested $defs in the schema itself. Could marginally benefit from an explicit mention of what the confirmation response contains, but the rich nested schema compensates.

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 0% for top-level params, so the description must compensate. It explains confirm (false=non-mutating preview, true=actual create) and schedule_date format (YYYY-MM-DD). The workout param semantics are left to the rich nested $defs, which carry their own extensive descriptions (target units, duration semantics, zone constraints). Good compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

Clear verb+resource stated upfront: "Create a Garmin workout and optionally schedule it on YYYY-MM-DD." The optional scheduling behavior is immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workouts, preview_workout, and delete_workout.

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 explicitly prescribes the two-phase usage flow: call with confirm=false for a non-mutating confirmation, then confirm=true only after explicit user approval. This tells the agent when it's safe to execute. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling preview_workout tool for when to choose one over the other, but the confirm flow itself is usable guidance.

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