create_strength_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real runtime behavior: an open rep set terminated by the Action button, timed holds, per-set naming on the Watch, and timed rest between sets. It omits mutation consequences and requirements — scheduling side effects, whether an existing workout on that date is overwritten, and validation or error behavior.

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 action and scoping sentence comes first, followed by two short supporting sentences about exercise shape and Watch rendering. The 'Romanian Deadlift · 8 reps' example earns its place by showing the output format, though the phrasing is slightly wordy.

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 nested-object, no-annotation, no-output-schema creation tool, the description covers the exercise payload well but leaves the scheduling half thin: date/time format, timezone, conflict behavior with existing scheduled workouts, and differentiation from create_workout are all absent.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% (spec, time, and schedule_date are undocumented), so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies the reps-vs-hold distinction and confirms sets/rest_s semantics inside each exercise, but says nothing about schedule_date format, the time field, or the workout name/description/estimated_minutes fields.

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 guided strength/core workout') plus the scheduling side effect, which is more than the name alone conveys. However, it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling create_workout or preview_workout, leaving the agent to guess which creator applies to strength work.

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?

Usage is implied: you reach for this when you want a guided strength/core session placed on a date. There is no explicit 'use this instead of create_workout when...' guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of whether preview_workout should be called first.

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