garmin_upload_course

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the created course is 'private', which is genuine context beyond annotations, but says nothing about authentication needs, whether duplicates are created on repeat calls, or what happens if the GPX is invalid.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero redundant wording. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with 25% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the optional metadata fields, the activity_type default, and any statement of what the call returns or how failures surface.

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 coverage is only 25% — only gpx_path carries a schema description ('full path to a .gpx file on this computer'). The description mentions a GPX file but adds nothing about the optional name, description, or the activity_type enum (default 'running'), so it does not compensate for the coverage 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 description states a specific verb (Create), resource (course in Garmin Connect), and source (a GPX file), plus the visibility trait 'private'. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings such as garmin_upload_workouts or garmin_courses, so it falls 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus garmin_upload_workouts, garmin_create_workout, or the garmin_courses listing tool. No prerequisites (authentication, file validity, duplicate handling) are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer everything.

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