audience.segments.update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It flags the pro-only restriction, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether updates are partial or full-replace, what the payload structure is, whether changes are reversible, or required permissions.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, so it is concise. But it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative; brevity here reflects missing content, not tight editing.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented nested payload object, the description is far from complete. Only the pro-only note partially compensates for the missing structured support.

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 0% and one of the two parameters is a free-form nested object ('payload'). The description adds no meaning for either segment_id or payload, leaving the agent with no idea what fields to populate.

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 pairs the verb 'update' with the resource 'segment', which minimally distinguishes it from create/delete/get siblings. However, it mostly restates the tool name and gives no indication of what about the segment is updatable, leaving the scope vague.

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 only usage-related signal is the '(pro-only)' qualifier, which is a gating condition rather than guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer update over create/delete, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives.

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