Push workout guide to watch

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

Annotations already declare a non-idempotent write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds substantial context beyond that: no live push to the watch, delivery depends on the phone's next normal sync, and a fallback pinning procedure. It also discloses the guideId update-vs-create 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, followed by mechanics, constraints, troubleshooting, and sibling routing in a logical order. It is on the longer side and the troubleshooting sentence could be trimmed, but each sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: the required env var, that the operation is a create-or-update depending on guideId, the lack of a live push, the sync dependency, and the correct sibling for gym sessions. Nothing material is missing.

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 75%, so date/title/exercises/guideId are mostly documented structurally. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that each exercise becomes one watch step advanced by a lap-button press, which clarifies how the exercises array is consumed. It doesn't add syntax detail for date or guideId.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Pushes a text-step workout guide') and names the exact mechanism (SuuntoPlus Guide Cloud API). It also distinguishes itself from the two sibling pushers by explaining that exercises map to lap-button steps, which push_strength_guide and push_interval_guide do differently.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'For gym sessions prefer push_strength_guide' with the reason (one lap per set/rest, readable by get_workout_laps). It also states the precondition (SUUNTO_APP_NAME must match the registered name) and what to do on failure (pin under SuuntoPlus Guides).

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