icu_update_activity_streams

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating 'Destructive — overwrites existing stream data' and mentioning accepted input formats (JSON array or CSV). Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, so the description reinforces and adds context without contradiction.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and destructive nature. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on input behavior. It covers what is being uploaded, the destructive effect, and accepted formats, sufficient for a tool with few parameters and good annotations.

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 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. While it mentions JSON or CSV, this is already in the schema description. No new insight is provided for the parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool uploads time-series streams onto an existing activity, giving specific examples (power, HR, cadence). It also differentiates itself from the sibling 'get_activity_streams' (READ), providing clear purpose and distinction.

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 notes that the tool is destructive and overwrites existing data, and contrasts with get_activity_streams. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives beyond that one sibling.

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