preview_workout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the explicit 'without changing Garmin Connect' statement, which reinforces the no-side-effect behavior, but it does not add further behavioral details such as what 'preview' returns or whether it communicates with Garmin at all. This is adequate but not rich given the 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of nine words with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, and the key safety qualifier appears at the end without burying the primary 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 rich input schema, existing annotations, and available output schema, the description captures the essential selection and invocation context: validate/preview a workout payload and do not modify Garmin Connect. It could slightly expand on what 'preview' entails, but the overall tool context is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly alongside the structured metadata.

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 only parameter is 'workout', which has no top-level description, and the tool description does not explain how to construct it. However, the nested $defs in the input schema thoroughly document the workout structure, and the phrase 'Garmin JSON' clarifies the conceptual payload. The description adds general context but relies on the schema for meaningful parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb pair ('Validate and preview') and names the resource ('Garmin JSON'), while explicitly stating the non-mutating nature ('without changing Garmin Connect'). This clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like create_workout, delete_workout, and unschedule_workout, and from read-only listing tools like list_workouts.

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 phrase 'without changing Garmin Connect' strongly implies this tool is for safe dry-run validation/preview before performing an actual mutation, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended usage is evident from the contrast with mutation siblings.

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