Переименовать сегмент

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explaining that despite the generic 'change' wording, it only affects the name (effectively rename), works with any segment type, and returns the updated segment object. This provides useful context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, immediately states the primary action, and includes the key scope and response details. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 rename tool with two well-documented parameters, strong annotations, and a described response shape, the description is complete. It does not need to cover edge cases or errors, as the schema and annotations handle the core expectations.

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 100% for both parameters (name and segment_id). The description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 states a specific action ('Изменяет сегмент') and immediately clarifies that the only mutable field is name, making it effectively a rename. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it works with any segment type, which sets it apart from creation tools like create_lookalike_segment and create_pixel_segment.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to rename a segment, since only the name field is available. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the scope is obvious given the sibling tools (delete, create, upload). The context is clear enough to guide selection.

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