set_activity_feel

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a mutation ('set'), and it explains the feel value semantics with labels and 'higher is better.' However, it does not mention whether existing feel values are overwritten, whether the activity must exist first, or any side effects. The presence of an output schema helps cover the return-value aspect.

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 tight and well-structured: a one-line primary action, a compact scale table, and a short Args section. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 is essentially complete: it identifies the resource, the accepted values, and the parameter meanings. The output schema covers return details. The only notable omission is guidance on how this tool relates to perceived effort and other activity-editing tools, but that is not required for correct invocation.

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% and feel has no enum, so the description fully compensates. It defines activity_id as 'ID of the activity to update' and specifies exactly the valid feel values (0, 25, 50, 75, 100) with human-readable meanings. This gives an agent everything needed to construct valid arguments.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Set how an activity felt' with an explicit 5-point scale. The Garmin Connect feel-rating mapping distinguishes it from other activity setters, though it does not explicitly contrast it with set_perceived_effort or other sibling tools.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool to record how an activity felt via the Garmin feel scale. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer the intended context.

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