schedule_garmin_workout

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the scheduling side effect, the sync-to-device outcome, the prerequisite that the workout must already exist, and the non-throwing auth-failure behavior. It does not mention whether scheduling on a date replaces an existing scheduled workout, but it covers the most important behavioral traits.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: purpose and outcome, prerequisite and exclusion, and error behavior. Every sentence contributes unique information and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, expected result, and failure behavior. It could ideally state the successful return value or confirmation format, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly appears to be missing.

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 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds useful context about where the workoutId comes from, but does not need to add more parameter detail. A baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Put an existing workout on the Garmin Connect calendar for a specific date.' It clearly states the outcome, that it schedules rather than creates, and distinguishes itself from create/list tools. This is exactly the kind of precise purpose statement an agent needs.

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 description explicitly states the precondition that a workoutId must already exist from create_garmin_workout or list_garmin_workouts, and explicitly says 'this tool does not create workouts.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and points to the relevant upstream sibling tools.

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