Upload workout file

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the closing 'Write operation.' is largely redundant. The description earns credit for behavior beyond the annotations: server-side processing delay before the workout appears, and the return of an uploadId that must be polled via get_upload_status.

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 core action, path requirement, and polling workflow are front-loaded in the first sentences; the trailing .fit/.gpx caveat is long but carries real decision-relevant information. Slightly verbose, nothing clearly wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the uploadId return and the polling path. Missing secondary details (size limits, auth/permission requirements, failure behavior), which matters for an open-world, non-idempotent write.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new semantics: the endpoint officially supports only .fit binary, the .gpx path is accepted but unverified behavior. It restates the absolute-path requirement, which the schema already covers.

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 ('Uploads a workout file to the user's Suunto account') and clearly separates this from siblings like push_workout_guide and export_workout_gpx, which move structured guides or export data rather than uploading a file from disk.

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?

It gives clear conditions for choosing a format ('use .fit for a workout that must reliably show up', .gpx is unverified) and names the follow-up tool (get_upload_status). It stops short of comparing this tool against other upload/push siblings, so no explicit when-not-to-use.

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