Сохранить загруженный сегмент

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

Annotations indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false), not destructive. Description adds async processing behavior ('обработка занимает время, статус смотрите через list_segments') and discloses size restrictions (check_size=false allows <100 records, unusable in Direct until >100). These go beyond annotations and help agent set expectations.

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?

Description is information-dense but efficient: two sentences pack purpose, workflow position, parameter details, constraints, and response format. No filler, but slightly long given that some info duplicates schema descriptions. Still earns its place by providing context.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, description covers workflow, parameter semantics, response format, and follow-up status check. It does not cover error scenarios or permissions, but those are not mandatory. Overall, agent has enough context to invoke correctly.

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%, but description adds context: explains enum meanings for content_type (idfa_gaid, mac, crm), defaults (CROSS_DEVICE), and special constraints (IN_DEVICE only for idfa_gaid, SHA256 only). It also clarifies check_size behavior with real-world implication, adding value over schema.

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?

Description states a specific action: 'Сохраняет сегмент, созданный из файла' (saves a segment created from a file), and clearly positions it as the second step after upload tools. It differentiates from siblings like rename_segment and delete_segment by describing the save/confirm workflow.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'второй шаг после upload_segment_file / upload_segment_csv_file' (second step after uploading). Also tells agent to check status via list_segments, implying not to use this for status. Provides constraints like check_size and hashing algorithm choices.

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