create_workout

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden; it does disclose two non-obvious traits: a dry-run/preview mode and platform-dependent backend routing (COROS MCP vs Garmin API). However it says nothing about permission requirements, whether a confirm is idempotent, what validation failures look like, or whether an already-created workout causes an error.

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?

A single compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. It is perhaps over-compressed given how much it leaves unexplained, but nothing in it 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 described, but for a nested-parameter, two-phase creation tool with zero annotation coverage the description is too thin. The preview→confirm handshake and the required workout block shape are the two things an agent most needs and neither is covered.

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% and the schema is a nested object with seven sub-fields, so the description must compensate — but it only gestures at platform routing and never explains confirm_token, date/sport/name/description/blocks semantics, or the block structure. Almost no meaning is added beyond the raw 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 single workout) plus a preview/confirm distinction, which is more than the name alone conveys. No sibling tool performs creation, so differentiation is implicitly clear, but it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 phrase 'preview or confirm' implies a two-step flow, which is useful routing information, but it never explains how to trigger preview versus confirm (i.e. the role of confirm_token) or when an agent should skip preview and commit directly. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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