icu_apply_sport_settings

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

Discloses that it recomputes historical activities, implying non-idempotent and potentially heavy computation. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds specific behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with zero wasted words. Every sentence adds value: first defines action, second clarifies usage and sibling distinction.

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 single parameter, full schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits adequately.

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?

Only one parameter (sport_id) with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states the verb ('recompute') and resource ('training load, zones, and derived metrics on HISTORICAL activities'), and differentiates from the sibling update_sport_settings by explicitly contrasting behaviors.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('after changing FTP/FTHR/pace to backfill chart math') and distinguishes from a sibling tool with 'Different from update_sport_settings (which just stores new values).'

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