Add gear

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

Annotations already mark this as a mutating, non-destructive operation. The description adds a useful behavioral note that activities are not tied to gear automatically by creation but rather through device sync or manual linking in Intervals.icu. It does not discuss duplicate handling, idempotency, or required permissions, but it does not contradict annotations either.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence says what the tool does and the second adds relevant linkage context. No filler, though the second sentence is arguably optional for simply invoking the tool.

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?

The definition is adequate for a simple create operation, especially with an output schema present, but it leaves gaps around parameter semantics and sibling-tool selection. It is not misleading, yet an agent would still need to infer name/notes/purchased behavior from the schema alone.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 20%, the description needed to explain the other parameters. It only adds meaning for starting_distance_km ('distance already covered') and gives an example value for the type enum; name, notes, and purchased remain unexplained.

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 states a clear verb/resource pairing ('Add gear') and gives a concrete example ('a new pair of running shoes'), plus the optional starting-distance wrinkle. This is enough to distinguish creation from sibling update/list/reminder tools such as update_gear and add_gear_reminder.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose create_gear over its siblings. The second sentence explains that gear is linked via sync or manually, but it never states exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that should route an agent to update_gear/list_gear/add_gear_reminder.

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