create_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the need for write scope and lists parameters, but fails to mention side effects (e.g., visibility, notification triggers), rate limits, or error conditions. Basic transparency, but significant 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, scope requirement, and a bulleted argument list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is front-loaded for quick scanning.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameter semantics but omits the return value (e.g., does it return the created activity? status?), error handling, and constraints (e.g., max name length). Completeness is adequate but not thorough for a creation tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter (e.g., sport_type with examples, start_date_local format, elapsed_time unit). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and title. However, some details (e.g., exhaustive sport_type list, validation rules) are missing, preventing a perfect score.

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's purpose: 'Create a manual activity on Strava.' It specifies a specific verb (create) and resource (activity), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_activity, get_activity, etc.

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 description mentions the required scope ('activity:write') and implies creation of new activities, but does not explicitly contrast with update_activity or other tools. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use scenarios.

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