garmin_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never says whether a click navigates, submits a form, mutates remote state, is irreversible, or whether the element numbering is invalidated afterward — critical facts for a browser-automation click.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Nothing in it is redundant with the title or schema, and the scope constraint is stated up front.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the core action is conveyed. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should still disclose post-click state changes and the read-then-click dependency, which it leaves to inference.

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 100% and the schema itself says 'Element number from the last read.' The description's phrase 'numbered element' corroborates but adds no new meaning such as valid ranges or what to do when numbering is stale. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already does the work.

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 ('Click') plus the resource ('a numbered element on the current Garmin Connect page'), which cleanly separates it from garmin_type and garmin_read by action type. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation comes from the verb alone rather than an explicit contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'on the current Garmin Connect page' hints a page must already be open, and the parameter note 'Element number from the last read' implies garmin_read must run first. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative for interacting with the page differently.

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