Log a manual activity

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the activity counts toward training load, and details should be confirmed before logging. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, date constraint, and behavioral warning. The most important usage constraint is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 mutating tool with an output schema and existing annotations, the description covers the essential side effects and constraints. It could have specified the expected date format or listed required fields more explicitly, but the schema partially covers those and the overall guidance is sufficient.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the input schema by specifying 'today or past dates only' and giving a treadmill example for the type/name fields. However, with 9 parameters and only 56% schema coverage, many parameter nuances are left to the schema or inference. It is adequate but not rich.

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 and resource: 'Log an activity that was not recorded by a device.' The treadmill example and date restriction make the tool's purpose concrete and distinguish it from other activity tools like search_activities or get_activity.

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?

It gives clear context for when this tool applies: only for non-device-recorded activities, and only for today or past dates. It also tells the agent to confirm details with the user first. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the usage boundary is clear enough.

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