update-activity

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

For a tool with no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (PATCH), the required auth scope (sales:write), and the key behavioral action of setting status. However, it does not mention side effects, whether updates are partial, reversibility, or response behavior, so transparency is only partial.

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 compact and front-loaded: the operation and endpoint come first, followed by the status-specific behavior and scope. Every sentence adds information and there is no filler.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and very low schema coverage, the description leaves too many gaps. It identifies the endpoint and statuses but does not cover the purpose of other fields, usage conditions, or expected behavior, making it incomplete for a tool this complex.

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 only 14%, and the description does not compensate. It adds meaning only for the status parameter by naming the done/cancelled values, but provides no semantics for body, dueAt, title, assigneeUserId, or cancelledReason. With coverage this low, the description should explain far more.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Update or complete/cancel a sales activity' and gives the exact PATCH endpoint. It also clarifies the key purpose of setting status to done or cancelled, making the tool's function unmistakable and distinct from other activity tools.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create-activity, get-activity, or list-activities. The endpoint and status operation imply usage context, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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