garmin_set_profile

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Local only' and 'only provided fields change' disclose that the tool operates on a local profile and performs partial updates without affecting unspecified fields. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 two sentences, with the core content front-loaded and no redundant phrases. Every clause adds information: the field list, the local/partial update semantics, and the sibling-tool exclusion. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 (11 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient high-level context: what the profile is for, which fields are affected, and the boundary with garmin_log. It lacks detailed cross-parameter relationships, but those are partially captured in schema descriptions, and the local/partial update statement reduces risk of misuse.

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?

With only 36% schema description coverage, the description compensates by grouping parameters into semantic categories: goal race (date, distance, fixed-time), phase, weekly availability, intensity preference, LT1 override. It enriches the meaning of parameters like goal_target_km by explaining fixed-time events (e.g., '24h with a target distance'). However, not every parameter (e.g., phase_week, phase_total_weeks) is explicitly mentioned, though they fall under 'phase'.

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 states the resource ('athlete context the watch cannot know') and lists the specific fields that are set, distinguishing it from the sibling tool garmin_log. Though it lacks an explicit verb like 'set' or 'update', the tool name supplies that action and the description enumerates the profile attributes, making the purpose clear.

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 when-not-to-use guidance ('Injuries and illness go to garmin_log') and clarifies the scope of use ('Local only; only provided fields change'). It implies when to use the tool—when providing athlete context the watch cannot know—but does not explicitly state alternatives beyond the garmin_log exclusion.

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