Upload workout file

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: it waits/polls up to ~20s, returns a structured result with a verified flag and a reason note, uploads are serialized with a pause so concurrent calls are safe, and it discloses format-support caveats. This is exactly the behavioral detail annotations alone can't convey.

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 required input are front-loaded, and the return-shape explanation is worth its space. Slight waste in the trailing 'Write operation.' which merely restates readOnlyHint=false, and the format caveat sentence is dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the return contract ({ uploadId, message, status, check }) and the polling/async follow-up path. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this write tool 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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description adds only a minor format hint (.fit vs .gpx) tied to filePath; comment, privacy, and description semantics come entirely from the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Uploads a workout file to the user's Suunto account'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like upload_route and push_workout_guide. An agent can tell exactly what domain object is being pushed.

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?

Explains the required input (absolute path) and gives concrete routing guidance: prefer .fit for reliable ingestion, treat .gpx as unverified, and call get_upload_status with the uploadId if processing doesn't finish. It doesn't explicitly contrast against the sibling push_* tools, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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