Push workout guide to watch

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: requires SUUNTO_APP_NAME to exactly match the name registered on apizone.suunto.com, clarifies that delivery is sync-dependent with pinning as a fallback, and discloses that pushes are queued one at a time so concurrent calls are safe. It also explains the returned check/verified semantics and instructs the agent not to report success when verified is false — a mutation-relevant failure mode the annotations cannot convey. 'Write operation' is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true.

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 and the sibling routing are front-loaded, followed by prerequisites, delivery mechanics, and result interpretation in descending order of importance. The parenthetical about testing/pinning is the only slightly expendable clause, and even it sets user expectations usefully.

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 non-idempotent, open-world write tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, concurrency safety, delivery latency, and how to interpret the returned verification data. An agent has everything needed to call it and to report results honestly.

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 the schema already documents most fields; the description adds the important mapping that each exercise entry becomes one discrete step advanced by a lap press, which is not derivable from the schema. It does not clarify how guideId interacts with title/date on update, leaving that overlap to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Pushes a text-step workout guide to the user's Suunto account via the SuuntoPlus Guide Cloud API') and explains the runtime effect: each exercise becomes one step advanced by a lap-button press. It explicitly distinguishes itself from push_strength_guide, so an agent can separate the two 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?

Gives a clear routing rule for the closest sibling ('For gym sessions prefer push_strength_guide') and explains the delivery path (no live push; arrives on the phone's next normal Suunto app sync) plus a remedy if it doesn't appear. It stops short of covering push_interval_guide or when to prefer upload_workout, so the sibling landscape is only partially mapped.

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