create_cycling_over_under_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the two-step side effect (create then upload to Garmin Connect), but says nothing about the FTP prerequisite, authentication needs, error behavior, or whether the created workout is persisted/scheduled. Partial disclosure for a mutation 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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a one-line workout explanation and a clean Args block. Every line earns its place given the 0% schema coverage, though the description is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 no explanation, and the description adequately covers the create action plus the upload side effect. It is nearly complete for a create tool; the main gap is the undocumented FTP dependency and any failure/permission context, which matters more without annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: all 8 parameters are named with meaning, units (seconds, minutes, FTP percentage), and defaults. It stops short of giving valid ranges or interactions (e.g., reps vs segment durations), but adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 a specific verb (create), a specific resource (over/under threshold cycling workout), and a second action (upload to Garmin Connect). The over/under alternation pattern clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling cycling-workout tools (tempo, sweet spot, interval, endurance, FTP test).

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 workout concept (alternating over/under FTP targets) implies when an athlete would use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternative workout tools. Usage must be inferred from the training description.

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