Set Activity Name

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

The annotations include destructiveHint: true, which already signals that this operation modifies data. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that: it says 'change the name' which implies mutation, but it doesn't disclose any side effects, such as whether the change is permanent, whether it affects other data, or if there are any constraints (e.g., name uniqueness). With the annotation already covering the destructive nature, the description adds little extra value, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence: 'Change the name of an existing activity.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and there is no wasted wording. It earns its place by being clear and to the point.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate. It covers the core purpose and the schema covers the parameters. However, it doesn't mention any potential side effects or prerequisites (e.g., the activity must exist), but that is implied by 'existing activity'. The annotations provide the destructive hint, so the description is complete enough for a simple mutation 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 input schema has 100% description coverage: both parameters (activityId and name) are described with 'The unique activity identifier' and 'New name for the activity'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema is fully descriptive, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't clarify any format or constraints (e.g., name length), but the schema already covers the basics.

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: 'Change the name of an existing activity.' It uses a specific verb ('change') and resource ('activity name'), and it distinguishes from siblings like set_activity_type and set_activity_privacy, which modify other attributes. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it's a mutation operation, but the destructiveHint annotation covers that.

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 implies usage: it's for renaming an existing activity, so it should be used when the user wants to change an activity's name. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the sibling tools, it's clear that set_activity_type and set_activity_privacy are for other modifications. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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