Push interval guide to watch

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it describes the delivery caveat (appears after the next normal Suunto app sync, no live push), the verification step after pushing, the warning to report verified:false rather than success, and the queued one-at-a-time behavior making concurrent calls safe. It also states the SUUNTO_APP_NAME prerequisite and that this is a write operation, consistent with the annotations.

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 dense but front-loaded: it opens with the operation, immediately contrasts the sibling tool, then covers prerequisites, delivery behavior, return verification, concurrency, and write status. Each sentence carries useful context, though the length is substantial and could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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 complex write tool with no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing context: prerequisite environment variable, delivery timing, post-push verification semantics, how to interpret verified:false, and concurrency safety. Combined with the fully described input schema, an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly and interpret the response.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, including block repeats, segment timing/distance, and heart-rate targets. The description adds conceptual color (warmup, intervals, recoveries, optional repeats, live HR targets) but does not add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: pushes an interval/cardio guide to the user's Suunto account via the SuuntoPlus Guide Cloud API. It also distinguishes the tool from push_workout_guide by explaining that interval segments auto-advance by time or distance rather than requiring manual laps.

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 gives clear usage context by contrasting it with push_workout_guide: choose this for hands-off interval/cardio sessions with time- or distance-based auto-advance. It names the alternative tool and explains the key differentiator, though it does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance beyond that comparison.

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