upload_workout

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

With no annotations, the description explicitly labels the call 'Write operation,' describes the async processing delay, and states that the file appears in the Suunto app shortly after upload. It also discloses the .gpx risk and the uploadId return value, though it omits duplicate/failure behavior.

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?

Every sentence contributes: core action, file-path requirement, async behavior and return value, and file-format caveat. It is front-loaded with the action and stays within a focused paragraph with no wasted words.

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, so the description must convey the return value, and it does by naming uploadId and pointing to get_upload_status. It also covers processing delay and file-format caveats, leaving an agent with enough information to invoke the tool and follow up correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by explaining the absolute-path requirement, the .fit/.gpx distinction, and the MIME used for .gpx. This extra guidance helps agents choose a correct value for the required filePath parameter.

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 concrete action — 'Uploads a workout file to the user's Suunto account' — and names the artifact, destination, and follow-up. The explicit 'Write operation' label and returned uploadId make it easy to distinguish from the read/list/export siblings.

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?

Provides workflow guidance: the returned uploadId should be polled via get_upload_status, and it steers users to .fit for reliability rather than .gpx. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool versus sibling upload tools, but the context is clear.

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