update_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool does not change tracked time and applies to entries in any state (running, paused, or stopped). However, it does not mention the potentially destructive nature of tag replacement (full list replace) or comment replacement, though that is covered in the schema. It adds valuable context beyond the schema's structured fields.

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 three sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second gives usage guidance, and the third provides a prerequisite. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, when to use, what it changes, and where to get the ID. It does not discuss return values or error conditions, but with no output schema this is less critical. The description is reasonably complete for an update 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter has a clear description (e.g., tags 'Full new tag list — replaces existing tags', comment 'New comment — replaces the existing one'). The description adds minor value by specifying where to get activity_id, but this is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 function: 'Update the comment and/or tags of an existing entry (running, paused, or stopped) without changing its tracked time.' It distinguishes itself from logging a new entry and references sibling tools for obtaining the activity_id, making the purpose 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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this instead of logging a new entry when the user wants to annotate, describe, or re-tag something already tracked.' It also tells the user where to get the activity_id (get_current_status or list_intervals), which serves as a clear usage prerequisite.

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