put_update_logged_in_athlete

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'This operation modifies Strava data' and 'Requires profile:write scope', which provides some transparency about side effects and auth. However, it does not explain what happens to other athlete fields, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response contains. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 relatively concise with clear sections (Endpoint, Description, Scopes), but it contains redundancy: 'Requires profile:write scope' and 'Scopes: required: profile:write' are repeated. The purpose statement is front-loaded, but the duplication wastes space. It is not overlong but could be trimmed.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the response format, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or any side effects beyond modifying data. The single parameter is documented, but the overall behavior on the resource is insufficiently specified for an agent to know what to expect.

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% – the weight parameter is fully described as 'The weight of the athlete in kilograms'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter clearly.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the specific resource 'the currently authenticated athlete'. It distinguishes from siblings like put_update_activity_by_id by specifying the target is the authenticated athlete, not just 'athlete'. The endpoint PUT /athlete reinforces the resource.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the required scope 'profile:write', which is a prerequisite, not a usage condition. It does not describe when to choose this over other update tools or mention any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name.

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