create_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 for behavioral disclosure. It describes the expected behavior of constructing a workout with warm-up, intervals, and cool-down, and notes the effect of setting interval/repeats to zero. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., data saved to user's account), required permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a creation tool.

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 well-structured: a concise opening sentence, a bullet list of the workout structure, a note about steady sessions, and a clear Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers input semantics thoroughly. It does not explain the return value, but the output schema likely handles that. Missing is guidance on error states (e.g., invalid sport value) or validation, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, but the description includes a detailed Args section that explains the meaning, example values, and defaults for each parameter (e.g., 'name: What to call the workout, for example "Tuesday intervals"'). This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare titles and types.

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 tool creates a 'time-based workout plan' in Garmin Connect, specifying the structure (warm-up, optional interval+recovery, cool-down). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workouts, get_workout, and schedule_workout, which are for reading or scheduling existing workouts, not creating new ones.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use certain parameter values, e.g., 'Set interval_minutes and repeats to 0 for a steady session.' It also explains the optional nature of intervals. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, or mention prerequisites like existing user authentication.

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