set_gear_activity_defaults

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the GET-then-PUT whole-record rewrite (so unrelated fields are preserved), the concurrency/clobbering hazard between callers, the explicit IRREVERSIBLE warning, and the case-sensitivity rule. This is exactly the extra behavioral context an agent needs for a destructive mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then implementation, casing rule, and warning in order. Dense but nearly every clause carries actionable information; the parenthetical history about the dead endpoint is slightly extraneous but justifies the unusual design.

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 2-param destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects, casing, clearing semantics, and the confirmation requirement. It does not describe the success response or any auth/permission prerequisites, which is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains that activityTypeKeys uses lowercase keys like "running" matching createGear, that each key becomes `{activityTypeKey, defaultGear: true, preferredGear: false}`, and that `[]` clears all defaults. gearUUID is left implicit but is self-evident from the name.

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 specific verb+resource ('set gear defaults') immediately, and adds the disambiguating note that the old dedicated default-gear endpoint is dead and there is no `setGearDefault`. In a sibling set that also contains get_gear_defaults and create_gear, this makes the tool's distinct role obvious without opening any schema.

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?

Explains the operational context well: read-modify-write flow, that `[]` clears all defaults, and that callers must confirm with the user first. It does not explicitly name a read alternative (e.g. get_gear_defaults) or state when not to use it, so routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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