create_cycling_ftp_test_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key side effect — the workout is uploaded to Garmin Connect — plus the deliberate absence of a power target and how the test is executed. It does not say whether the workout is scheduled, whether it requires authentication/device setup, or what happens on upload failure.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by protocol rationale, then a compact Args block. Slightly redundant with the schema, which already carries the same defaults and types, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers parameters, the upload side effect, and the workout's intent. The remaining gap is scheduling/authentication context and any constraints on duration parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all four parameters are named with their meaning and units (durations in minutes) and their defaults. It stops short of constraints such as minimum/maximum durations or whether test_min changes the workout structure.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (Create), a specific resource (20-minute FTP test cycling workout), and the side effect (upload to Garmin Connect). It clearly distinguishes itself from the many sibling create_cycling_* tools (endurance, tempo, sweet spot, interval, over/under) by naming the FTP-test protocol.

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?

It explains the workout's nature (no power target, free effort, max sustainable pace, average watts recorded) which implies when it is appropriate, but never states when to choose this over get_cycling_ftp or the other cycling workout builders, nor any prerequisite (e.g., needing a power meter).

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