activity_types_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions that changes affect all activities using this type and that system-defined types cannot be updated, but it lacks details on permissions, idempotency, destructive potential, or side effects. For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a list of updatable properties, a bulleted 'Workflow tips' section, and a bulleted 'Common use cases' section. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy, and the most important details are front-loaded.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does not specify the return value format or error handling. However, for a standard update tool with 5 parameters (all optional except id), the description covers the main workflow and constraints. Missing return information and potential error scenarios slightly reduce completeness.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, and the description adds value by providing example JSON payloads for each parameter and clarifying the color format (6-character hex code without #). Although schema coverage is 100%, the examples and contextual tips enhance understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 'Update an existing activity type' and lists the specific properties that can be updated: name, icon, color, or display order. It distinguishes from sibling tools like activity_types_create or activity_types_delete by focusing on the update action and noting limitations such as system-defined types being immutable.

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 provides explicit workflow tips: use activity_types/list to find the ID first, only include fields to update, cannot update system-defined types, and changes affect all activities. Common use cases with examples are included. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for creating types) or mention alternatives like activity_types_create, though these are implied by the context.

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