push_workout_guide

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

The description reveals that delivery depends on normal Suunto app sync, there's no direct live push to the watch, and the guide may need manual pinning in the Suunto app if it doesn't appear. It also notes it's a write operation. However, it doesn't discuss failure modes, rate limits, or whether a guideId update is destructive to existing data.

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 a bit lengthy but every sentence contributes context: the API used, the step conversion, env var requirement, and sync behavior. It could be tightened slightly but is not bloated.

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?

The description lacks a clear contrast with push_interval_guide, but the context of the SuuntoPlus Guide Cloud API and sync behavior is sufficiently explained. There is no output schema, so the return value is not described, but for an async API push that might be acceptable.

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?

Description adds meaning to the exercises parameter by explaining each exercise becomes one step and is advanced by a lap-button press, and it interprets the detail field as a display string. However, with 75% schema coverage, the guideId parameter is documented in the schema but the description adds little beyond stating it updates an existing guide. The date and title are already well described by the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: pushing a text-step workout guide to the user's Suunto account via the SuuntoPlus Guide Cloud API. It distinguishes itself from siblings like push_interval_guide and upload_workout by explicitly mentioning it pushes a text-step workout guide and describing the exercise-to-step conversion. This provides a clear verb, resource, and conceptual model.

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 explains when to use this tool, especially noting the env var requirement and behavior around syncing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with push_interval_guide for choosing which guide type to push. Usage context is fairly clear (a workout guide), though not as definitive as listing alternatives.

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