Update the name of a Garmin activity by providing its ID and the new name.
Set or update the name of an activity.
Args: activity_id: ID of the activity to update activity_name: New activity name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activity_id | Yes | ||
| activity_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the name is set/updated, without mentioning side effects, whether the activity must already exist, or what happens on failure. This is minimal transparency for a mutating operation.
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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement followed by an Args block. There is no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a clear function.
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 the operation and both arguments sufficiently. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The main gap is the lack of usage context relative to sibling tools, but basic invocation is fully supported.
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%, but the description's Args section provides meaning for both parameters: activity_id is the activity to update and activity_name is the new name. This compensates for the bare schema titles, though it does not elaborate on validation rules or accepted formats.
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 states a specific verb ('Set or update') and a clear resource ('the name of an activity'), which is distinct from sibling tools like set_activity_type, set_activity_description, or set_activity_event_type. An agent can immediately identify what attribute this tool modifies 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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling set_* tools. The description does not mention selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage must be inferred solely from the tool name and parameter names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.