create_run_progression_workout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the side effect that the workout is uploaded to Garmin Connect, which is meaningful for a mutation. However it says nothing about permissions, whether an existing workout is overwritten, or upload failure behavior.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then a compact conceptual explanation, then a well-organized Args section with a worked example. The two sentences about sequential blocks and increasing zones overlap slightly, 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 explained, and the description covers the create-and-upload behavior and all four parameters. The only gap is the absence of any mention of prerequisites or how the upload interacts with existing workouts.

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 carry everything — and it does: it documents name, the nested block keys (duration_sec as int seconds, hr_zone as Z1-Z5), a concrete three-block example, and the defaults for warmup_min and cooldown_min. This fully compensates for the undocumented schema.

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 and resource ('Create a progressive run workout and upload it to Garmin Connect') and defines the structure (sequential blocks with increasing zones, no recovery), which distinguishes it conceptually from interval-style siblings. It never names an alternative sibling (e.g. create_run_intervals_workout) to make the routing explicit, so it stops short of a 5.

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 definition of a progression (sequential blocks, no recovery, increasing intensity zones) implicitly tells the agent when this tool fits, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no sibling named as an alternative. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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