update_activity

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's addition of 'Only specified fields are updated' provides meaningful partial-update semantics beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the 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?

The description is succinct and well-organized: an opening sentence, usage guidance, an alternative, and a compact parameter list. Even though the parameter list mirrors the schema, the overall structure is clean and every section serves a clear purpose.

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 full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema present, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, what parameters mean, and a pointer to an alternative tool. No critical gaps remain.

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 Args list in the description merely duplicates the schema descriptions without adding new detail (e.g., type examples are identical). Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema itself carries the parameter meaning.

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 tool updates metadata fields on an activity, with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('activity'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool add_activity_message by explicitly directing users to that tool for comment posting.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when editing activity titles, descriptions, types, or gear assignment') and an alternative (add_activity_message). This clearly differentiates usage from a key sibling.

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