post_create_upload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the operation 'modifies Strava data' and requires the 'activity:write' scope. However, it does not explain the asynchronous nature of uploads, whether an upload ID is returned, or what happens if the file is invalid. It provides a basic warning about modification but lacks depth on process and side effects.

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 short, but it redundantly states the scope requirement twice: 'Requires activity:write scope' and 'Scopes: required: activity:write.' This duplication wastes space without adding value. The structure is otherwise straightforward, but the repetition makes it less polished than a single, well-phrased scope statement.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what happens after the upload: return format, processing time, relationship to the 'activity' that gets created, and potential error cases. It only states the basic action and modifies-data warning, leaving an agent uncertain about expected behavior. For a 7-parameter tool with a file upload, this is insufficient.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema itself provides the meaning for each field. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, such as how 'data_type' affects parsing or what 'commute' and 'trainer' do to the resulting activity. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate with extra semantics.

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 ('Uploads') and resource ('a new data file to create an activity from'), making the core purpose clear. It implicitly distinguishes from direct activity creation (post_create_activity) by focusing on file upload, but does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast the two. The purpose is not a tautology and is understandable.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you have a data file to upload and create an activity from. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like post_create_activity. There is no mention of prerequisites, sequencing, or fallback scenarios, so an agent would have to infer the appropriate context.

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