Create activity

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the side effect that the activity becomes visible to everyone the album is shared with, plus a note on the return shape. It does not cover permission requirements or whether activities can be edited/removed after creation (delete_activity exists as a sibling).

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a side-effect line, then a compact per-argument list and a return note. Well structured with little waste, though the Args block partially restates parameter names already visible in the schema.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation with no schema descriptions, the definition covers purpose, audience-visible side effect, all four arguments, and the return shape (an output schema also exists). Only permission/prerequisite details and ID formats are missing, which are minor for this complexity.

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 carries the full burden and largely does: it explains album_id, that comment should be empty when sending a like, that asset_id targets a specific asset instead of the album, and that like=true switches the activity type. It omits format details such as album_id/asset_id string formats and the interaction when both comment and like are supplied.

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?

"Post a comment (or a like) on a shared album or on one asset in it" gives a specific verb (post) and resource (comment/like activity on an album or asset), and the scope distinguishes it from siblings like list_activities and delete_activity without needing their schemas.

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 the use case (commenting or liking on a shared album) and clarifies the album-vs-asset targeting via the asset_id arg. However, it never states when to choose this over alternatives or any preconditions (e.g., album must be shared with the caller), so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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