update_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and lists important behaviors such as deep-cloning, orphan pruning, deduplication, and support for activity types. However, it does not cover permissions, failure modes, or idempotency, leaving some gaps.

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 reasonably concise at 3-4 sentences, front-loaded with the main action before listing handling details. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bulleted list for behaviors) but is still clear and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the main behaviors (cloning, deduplication, type support) necessary for agent invocation. However, it omits details on error handling, idempotency, or what happens if the experience is not found, which would enhance completeness.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that experienceName is matched case-insensitively and that activityType supports 'ab' and 'xt', which complements the schema. It also mentions automatic env variable loading for API key/tenant, which are not parameters but helpful context.

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 tool updates an Adobe Target activity by injecting new HTML/JS code into a named experience, which is a specific and distinct action from sibling tools like update_activity_name or update_activity_selector.

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 implies usage for code injection into AB or XT activities but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives. No direct exclusions or recommendations are provided, relying on the user to infer from the list of siblings.

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