icu_apply_sport_settings

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds useful scope context by stating the recomputation hits HISTORICAL activities broadly, but it does not say what exactly is overwritten, whether the change is reversible, or what permissions/athlete scoping apply.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the sibling distinction and the usage trigger. No redundant or filler text; every sentence carries information.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the what, when, and the alternative. It is nearly complete for a bulk-mutation tool, with only minor missing detail on authorization/athlete scoping given the destructive and open-world nature.

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 100%, so both sport_id and athlete_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning (no format, defaults, or scoping nuance beyond what the schema provides), so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Recompute') and concrete resources ('training load, zones, and derived metrics on HISTORICAL activities'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling update_sport_settings, which 'just stores new values,' making the boundary between the two unambiguous.

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?

It gives a clear triggering condition ('Use after changing FTP/FTHR/pace to backfill chart math') and names the alternative it is not (update_sport_settings). The only gap is that it does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., for new activities or live data), so it lacks an explicit exclusion.

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