Rename a Garmin Connect activity by providing its ID and new name. Verifies the change to ensure the name is updated.
resolves to null on success. Live-verified: value read back via getActivity after the call, not just that the request was accepted
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activityId | Yes | Numeric id | |
| activityName | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description usefully adds that success returns null and that the value was live-verified by reading it back via getActivity — genuine value beyond annotations. It omits whether the existing name is overwritten, auth/permission needs, and rate limits.
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?
Short, but it is a sentence fragment that leads with return semantics instead of purpose, so the most important information is not front-loaded. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy.
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 and the description does cover the return value, but for a two-required-parameter mutation with one undocumented parameter and no purpose statement, the definition leaves the agent guessing about what the tool actually changes.
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 only 50% (activityName has no description), and the description adds nothing about either parameter — not the id format beyond 'Numeric id', not any constraint on the name string. With two required parameters it should carry more weight than this.
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 never states what the tool does — it only says the call 'resolves to `null` on success' and how to verify the result. An agent must infer the purpose entirely from the name set_activity_name. The description is about return behavior, not the action performed.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing among the many siblings (set_activity_description, set_activity_type, set_activity_feel, etc.) that mutate activity fields. The verification hint via getActivity is the only contextual clue offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.