update_activity_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: validation against activity entities, dry_run default, and auto-backup before writes. It does not detail error handling, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value explanation.

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 four sentences, front-loading the main action. Every sentence adds unique information: purpose, sequence format, validation, and safety defaults. No unnecessary words.

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 (modifying sequences with validation and safety features) and the absence of annotations, the description covers the main behaviors: sequence format, validation, dry run, and backup. It does not address errors or success output, but the output schema exists. Minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the sequence format (on_sequence, off_sequence) and dry_run default, but does not describe the 'host' parameter at all. Activity_id is implied but not explicitly described. Partial compensation, but a gap remains.

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's purpose: 'Replace an activity's on and/or off power sequence.' It uses a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('activity's power sequence'), and the format description distinguishes it from siblings like 'send_command' which sends single commands.

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 provides context on usage: it explains that omitted sequences remain unchanged and empty lists clear them, and that dry_run defaults to true with auto-backup. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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