clio_update_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation but does not state whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether existing fields are overwritten, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. The examples (fix hours, note, date) hint at capabilities but do not detail behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core purpose and provides illustrative examples efficiently.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a 5-parameter schema at 0% description coverage, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent. It lacks details on return values, partial update semantics, validation rules, and preconditions, leaving significant gaps 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 add meaning. It maps 'hours' to quantity, 'note', and 'date', but omits price and id. This provides partial semantic value for three of five parameters, but the missing parameters and lack of field-level detail prevent a higher score.

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 the action ('Update') and the resource ('a time/expense entry'), with concrete examples (fix hours, note, or date). This distinguishes it from siblings like clio_log_time/clio_log_expense (create), clio_get_activity (read), and clio_delete_activity (delete).

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 alternatives. It does not mention that it is for modifying existing entries rather than creating new ones, nor does it reference any prerequisites or exclusions. The examples imply usage but do not provide clear context.

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