apply_sport_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key effect (recalculates training load, zones, other derived metrics) and that it applies to historical activities, optionally filtered by oldest_date. However, it does not state whether this is destructive/irreversible, whether it overwrites existing activity data, or if any permissions/backups are needed. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a summary line, a brief explanation paragraph, and an Args list. It is concise but includes minor redundancy with the schema (Args reproduces schema descriptions). Still, every sentence contributes context and it is not bloated.

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?

While the output schema covers return values and the tool is relatively simple, the description leaves the semantics of oldest_date ambiguous (does it apply to activities on/after that date or before?) and does not clarify whether the operation is reversible or what specific activities are affected. For a mutation tool, more explicit scope and side-effect information would make it complete.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions; the description's Args section largely duplicates this. However, it adds the clarification that oldest_date 'defaults to all' which explains the null default, providing extra meaning beyond the schema. It also reinforces 'current sport settings' in the narrative.

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 states 'Apply sport settings (zones, thresholds) to historical activities' with a specific verb ('apply') and resource, and further explains that it recalculates training load, zones, and derived metrics. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_sport_settings (which edits settings) and get_sport_settings (which retrieves).

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 clearly implies usage: to apply sport settings to historical activities and recalculate derived metrics. It provides context that the operation affects historical activities based on current settings, and mentions the optional oldest_date cutoff. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, unlike the highest standard.

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