set_perceived_effort

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a bare 'sets RPE' by explaining the 0-10 scale, that 0 clears the rating, and that Garmin stores the value multiplied by 10 while the tool handles conversion. It does not mention mutation side effects or permissions, but the setter behavior and clearing semantics are well covered.

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 front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place: the scale, the clear-rating behavior, the internal conversion detail, and the parameter list are all relevant and free of filler.

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?

The tool is simple and the two required parameters are fully described. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. Minor gaps such as explicit alternative-routing guidance and potential validation behavior prevent a perfect score, but the description is otherwise complete 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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: activity_id is identified as the target activity, and rpe is explained with its 0-10 valid range and the special meaning of 0. The schema provides only type information, making the description's parameter explanations essential and largely sufficient.

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 names the verb ('Set') and the resource ('perceived effort (RPE) for an activity'), which is unambiguous among the many set_activity_* sibling tools. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like set_activity_feel, but the RPE target and 0-10 scale make the purpose clear.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative setters such as set_activity_feel or set_activity_name. It implies usage by naming what it does, but does not state conditions, exclusions, or when another sibling tool would be preferred.

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