put_update_activity_by_id

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

The description notes it modifies Strava data and lists required scopes, but with no annotations it carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether unspecified fields are preserved (partial vs. full update), what the response returns, or error behavior on invalid IDs.

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 structure is mostly clear but includes redundant scope information ('Requires activity:write...' repeated as 'Scopes: required: activity:write...'). The endpoint line is redundant with the tool name, making the description slightly less concise than it could be.

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?

For a mutation tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits critical behavioral details. It does not explain whether the update replaces or merges fields, what the response contains, or how missing IDs are handled, leaving an agent under-informed.

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 parameters are already described in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning to parameters, which meets the baseline for this dimension.

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 ('Updates the given activity') and clarifies that the activity must be owned by the authenticated athlete. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling create tool (post_create_activity) and read tools like get_activity_by_id.

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 provides ownership and scope requirements but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that create should be used for new activities or that read tools retrieve activities, leaving usage context implicit.

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