update_activity

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

No annotations present, but the description clearly states the mutation behavior and specifies that optional parameters with defaults (e.g., empty string) will not change the field, which provides adequate transparency beyond the schema.

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 structured with 'Args:' and each parameter on a separate line, making it easy to scan. However, it is somewhat lengthy due to listing all 15 parameters; still, every line adds value.

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?

With 15 parameters (3 required) and an output schema present, the description covers all parameters and their semantics, making it sufficiently complete for an update tool. No major gaps identified.

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 0%, but the description adds detailed meaning to each parameter, including special behaviors (e.g., '빈 문자열이면 변경하지 않음' for title, '0이면 변경하지 않음' for cost), fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 '활동을 수정한다' (modify activity), specifies the verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like create_activity, delete_activity, and reorder_activities.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like create_activity or update_day, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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