update_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does explain parameter-level behavior (e.g., empty string for title means no change, cost=0 means no change), but omits high-level effects like whether updates are partial or full, or any side effects.

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 reasonably concise with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. The 'Args:' header is slightly redundant but not harmful. Could be slightly more terse.

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 has 14 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains each parameter's purpose. However, it lacks overall context like return value description or constraints. Since output schema exists, return value is not required, but some operational context is missing.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning in Korean (e.g., '변경할 제목' for title, time format specification). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type/default 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 the action ('활동을 수정한다' means 'modify the activity') and resource ('활동' = activity). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_activity or delete_activity by specifying 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_day, or when not to use it. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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