Set Activity Privacy

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint and openWorldHint, indicating mutation and non-isolated effects. The description adds value by disambiguating the 'subscribers' enum value as Garmin's 'connections only' and reminding the agent to fetch the current level first, which helps avoid mix-ups beyond what annotations state.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains only three purposeful sentences: the action, a critical value disambiguation, and a valuable precondition. There is no wasted content.

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 two-parameter activity write tool, the description supplies the key operational details: what is being changed and how to pick the correct enum value. It also points to a useful helper call. Mentioning consequences of making something public could be the one missing layer, but given annotations and schema coverage, this remains 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 schema covers all parameters at 100%, including the enum and the invalid 'followers' warning. The description still earns credit by mapping 'subscribers' to Garmin UI terminology, preventing incorrect parameter selection.

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 opens with 'Change the privacy of an activity', stating a clear action verb and resource. It uniquely distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like set_activity_name or set_activity_type, and the subject matter is unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Read the current level from accessControlRuleDTO in get_activity_details before changing it', giving an actionable prerequisite and naming a related sibling tool. It does not discuss explicit when-not-to-use cases, but it provides clear contextual guidance.

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