delete_segment

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

With zero annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly flags that this is a 'soft' delete (data retained, definition removed), which is key for an agent deciding on mutation operations. However, it omits specifics like required privileges, reversibility (undo), or impact on addresses/functions referencing the segment.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence clarifies an important nuance (non-destructive nature). No extraneous words. A slightly more structured entry could add parameter format details without bloating.

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 presence of an output schema (which can document return values), the description needn't cover outputs. The tool is relatively simple (1 param, no nesting), so the description covers the essential behavior and nuance. However, it lacks guidance on parameter format and pre/post conditions, which a complete entry should provide for reliable agent invocation.

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 1 parameter (address) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description states the address identifies the segment to delete but does not clarify the address format (absolute, relative, offset), or whether it must be the segment base address or any address within. This adds value beyond the raw schema but leaves ambiguity.

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 action ('Delete the segment') and the specific resource ('containing the given address'). It also clarifies semantics vs. a destructive full delete ('The data is kept but the segment definition is removed'). This distinguishes it from other segment operations like create_segment or set_segment_permissions, though it doesn't directly name any sibling for comparison.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like undefine or undefine_function, which also remove structure. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the address must be within an existing segment) or consequences for related data (e.g., functions or bytes mapped to the segment).

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