Push interval guide to watch

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

Annotations already declare write/destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the exact-match SUUNTO_APP_NAME env var requirement and the delivery caveat (no live push; appears after the next normal sync). It stops short of explaining the destructive aspect — that supplying guideId overwrites an existing guide — which the destructiveHint=true flags.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by comparison, environment prerequisite, and delivery caveat. It is dense but every sentence carries distinct information; the 'Write operation.' tail is mildly redundant with annotations but otherwise there is little waste.

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 destructive write tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the definition covers purpose, alternative routing, environment requirement, and delivery latency. The main remaining gap is not spelling out the overwrite behavior when guideId is supplied, but overall an agent has what it needs to call it correctly.

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%, so every parameter (date, title, blocks/segments, guideId) is already richly documented. The description describes the segment/block model conceptually (warmup, intervals, recoveries, repeats, target HR) but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Pushes an interval/cardio guide ... to the user's Suunto account') plus the underlying mechanism (SuuntoPlus Guide Cloud API). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling push_workout_guide, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (push_workout_guide) and gives the exact condition that selects this tool: interval segments auto-advance by elapsed time or distance for a hands-off run/ride, versus manual lap-per-exercise. It also supplies the required SUUNTO_APP_NAME precondition.

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