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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: definition changes create a new version while renaming does not, and the call requires creator scope. It also signals replacement (not merge) semantics for filters. It falls short of describing what is lost when a definition is replaced, which matters for a tool flagged destructiveHint=true.

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?

Dense, front-loaded sentences covering mode selection, constraints, versioning, and scope in a short block. The final two sentences duplicate the same requirement ("Requires the creator scope. Requires 'creator' scope."), wasting one sentence.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with an output schema, it covers prerequisites, mutual exclusion, versioning side effects, and the sibling for archiving. The one gap is not spelling out that replaced filters are discarded entirely, which is the main thing an agent could get wrong.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds two facts the schema does not carry: filters and filter_groups are mutually exclusive, and record_limit must be paired with bounded geography when positive. It does not explain how name interacts with a definition change in the same call.

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?

States two specific operations on a specific resource: rename a segment or replace its filter definition. It also explicitly routes archiving elsewhere ("Use archive_segment to archive or restore"), so an agent can distinguish it from the nearest sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use rules: filters XOR filter_groups, record_limit=null to remove a cap, a positive limit requires bounded State/City/ZIP geography, and archive_segment is the tool for archive/restore. Exclusions and alternatives are both stated explicitly.

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