upload_workout

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly identifies the operation as a write, explains the async side effect (file appears in the app after processing), gives a latency estimate, and states that the return value is a pollable uploadId. It does not cover failure modes or authentication requirements, which prevents a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the operation and target, then it covers the required input, the expected side effect, the return value, format constraints, and write semantics. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes to successful invocation.

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 is complete enough for the tool's complexity: it names the required parameter, accepted file types, the side-effect timing, and the follow-up polling flow. The lack of failure-mode details like what happens with invalid files or upload limit errors is the only meaningful gap.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds useful emphasis on the absolute path and file format details, but it does not materially expand on the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Uploads a FIT or GPX workout file'), a clear target ('the user's Suunto account'), and the file path requirement. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/get/export tools, and even names the follow-up polling tool get_upload_status.

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 context: use this when uploading a local .fit/.gpx workout file, and poll the returned uploadId via get_upload_status afterward. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it against push_workout_guide/push_interval_guide, but the workflow guidance is strong enough for an agent to decide correctly.

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