Удалить сегмент

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds the crucial context that the operation is irreversible and that no recovery method exists in the API. It also discloses the success response format, which is not covered by the annotations. This adds genuine value without contradicting the annotations.

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 consists of two concise sentences that immediately state the action and key caveat. There is no redundant information or filler, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description combined with annotations and schema provides sufficient context: what it does, how to identify the target, the irreversible nature, and the expected response. Minor aspects like error behavior are not covered, but given the tool's simplicity, this is mostly complete.

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 fully describes the only parameter, segment_id, including its type, constraints, and source (from list_segments or creation response). With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Удаляет' (deletes) with the resource 'сегмент' (segment), clearly indicating what the tool does. The action is distinct from sibling tools like rename_segment or list_segments, making its 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?

The description mentions deletion of a specified segment and explicitly warns that the operation is irreversible, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling toolset and the nature of the operation make the appropriate usage obvious.

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