set_activity_description

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states this is a mutation ('Set or update'), identifies the target field, and documents the important empty-string-clearing behavior. It does not mention auth or validation, but for a simple field setter this is adequate.

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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose, followed by useful usage context and the critical clearing behavior. The Args section is necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions. It is slightly redundant in places but remains well-organized and appropriately sized.

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 simple two-parameter setter, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and clearing behavior. An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. Missing auth/error details are minor for this tool.

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. The Args section explains both parameters: activity_id is the ID of the activity to update, and description is the new text with empty-string clearing semantics. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though it omits constraints like max length.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set or update the free-text description (notes) of an activity.' It clearly identifies this as the notes field, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_activity_name and set_activity_type without ambiguity.

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 clear context for when to use the tool, such as recording how a session felt, kit used, conditions, and niggles. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can select it correctly.

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