update_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden alone; it does disclose the key behavioral trait that this is a partial PATCH update rather than a full replace. It omits permission requirements, what happens when an unsupported field (KindId/ParentId) is sent, and whether changes are reversible, so meaningful gaps remain.

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?

Two tight clauses with no filler; the PATCH/partial-update rule is front-loaded and the status-entity caveat follows. Nothing is wasted, though the second clause is slightly cryptic without context.

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?

For a 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the update semantics and one important domain gotcha. It does not cover error behavior for unsupported fields or what the response contains, leaving real gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 the schema already documents every field, including the 'NOT SUPPORTED' notes on KindId and ParentId. The description's 'send only the fields to change' phrase adds real partial-update semantics, but it adds no field-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update activity fields via PATCH') and the operation's core constraint ('send only the fields to change'). The resource ('activity') distinguishes it from update_task/update_service siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 PATCH partial-update guidance tells the agent how to call it, and the note that activity statuses live under the 'activitystatuses' entity steers ID lookup. However, it never says when to use this versus bulk_update_activity_status or create_activity, which are the obvious adjacent choices.

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