icu_update_sport_settings

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

Annotations already indicate that the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), not destructive (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds no further behavioral context beyond 'Update', which aligns with annotations. With annotations covering the key behavioral traits, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words; every word earns its place.

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 (7 parameters, output schema exists) and schema coverage, the description covers the core functionality. It could mention the option to recalc_hr_zones or other effects, but the schema provides that detail. The output schema exists so return values are not needed. Overall, it is adequate but could be slightly more comprehensive.

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 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description summarizes the types of thresholds (outdoor/indoor FTP, FTHR, pace, swim) but adds little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('existing per-sport threshold record'), and specifies the types of thresholds. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like icu_create_sport_settings (create) and icu_get_sport_settings (get) through the verb 'update'.

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?

While the description implicitly indicates when to use the tool (to update existing records), it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools and the name make it clear enough.

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