create_swim_intervals_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect — the workout is uploaded to Garmin Connect — which is genuinely useful behavioral information. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, whether the workout is only uploaded or also scheduled, failure behavior, or whether it overwrites anything.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and followed by an ordered arg list that reads quickly. Mild redundancy in restating defaults already present in the schema, but the added units and pace format justify most of the length.

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 creation-plus-upload behavior and all parameter meanings. It falls short only on the missing differentiation from sibling swim-workout creators and on failure/permission behavior for an unannotated mutation tool.

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% (properties have titles only), so the Args block does the heavy lifting and does it reasonably well: it supplies units for every distance parameter, the 'M:SS/100m' format for pace, and an example value for name. Stroke type is named but its allowed values are not enumerated, which is the main gap.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource ('Create a CSS threshold swim interval workout and upload it to Garmin Connect'), which is more specific than the bare name. However, it never differentiates itself from the very similar sibling 'create_swim_threshold_workout' (nor 'create_swim_endurance_workout' / 'create_swim_drills_workout'), leaving the agent to guess which swim workout creator to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. Given four sibling swim-workout creators, the description should say what makes this interval/CSS variant the right choice, but it offers nothing beyond the parameter list.

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