Create Workout

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

The annotations include destructiveHint: true, which indicates the tool modifies state, but the description does not elaborate on side effects, required permissions, or the response format. It does not explicitly state that creating a workout will persist it in Garmin Connect or that it may overwrite an existing workout if the same name is used. The example gives no behavioral details.

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 concise, with an introductory sentence and a practical example. The example is not overly verbose and directly demonstrates usage. The structure is well-organized, placing the core purpose first and the example second. No redundant information is present.

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?

The description lacks information about the expected output or response format, which is not covered by an output schema. It also does not mention error cases, constraints (e.g., maximum number of steps), or whether the workout will be immediately visible. While the example provides a basic scenario, it does not explain how to specify repeat blocks, which the description claims to support. Thus, it is not fully complete for a tool with no output schema.

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?

The schema descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), and sportType lists allowed values. The description's example adds significant meaning to the workoutSegments parameter, which is otherwise vaguely described as 'Array of workout segments containing steps'. The example illustrates the structure of segments and steps, filling a gap in the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new structured workout'. The included example further clarifies the expected input for an interval running workout. This is a specific, unambiguous action.

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?

While the description indicates the tool is for creation, it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like update_workout or delete_workout. The example gives a practical illustration, but no guidance on when not to use it or when a different tool is more appropriate.

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