push_interval_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses the write nature, the auto-advance mechanism, the target-HR display capability, the environmental prerequisite, and the 'no live push' delivery caveat. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to anticipate correct 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 description is compact and front-loaded: purpose, differentiation, behavior, requirements, and caveat are each handled in direct, memorable sentences. No sentence is wasted or merely repeats 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?

Given the high schema coverage and absent annotations, the description adds the missing behavioral context: it explains the async sync behavior, the write operation, and the most important execution constraint (environment variable match). It does not discuss error conditions or update-via-guideId side effects, but those are secondary for a tool with this clear schema and no output schema.

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?

The schema already documents all 4 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline for this dimension is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining the practical meaning of the parameters: durationSec/distanceM drive auto-advance, and targetHrMin/targetHrMax can appear live alongside the segment display. This contextual layer helps the agent understand how parameter choices affect device behavior.

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: 'Pushes an interval/cardio guide ... to the user's Suunto account via the SuuntoPlus Guide Cloud API.' It also explicitly differentiates itself from push_workout_guide by contrasting auto-advancing interval segments with manual lap-per-exercise, making its purpose and distinct role unmistakable.

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 states its context and alternative: interval/cardio guides with auto-advance should go here, while manual lap-by-lap guides belong to push_workout_guide. It also gives practical usage constraints, like the SUUNTO_APP_NAME environment variable requirement and the after-sync delivery behavior, helping the agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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