put_star_segment

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It explicitly states 'This operation modifies Strava data', which discloses mutation. It also mentions the required scope. However, it does not discuss reversibility, side effects, error behavior, or what happens on success/failure, leaving notable gaps.

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 short but somewhat repetitive, including redundant sections like 'Star Segment' and 'Description:' that restate the title. The structure could be cleaner, but it is not overly verbose.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and mutation. However, it omits details about the response, error conditions, or any preconditions beyond scope, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 already fully documents both parameters (id and starred) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter context beyond that, so it does not elevate above the schema-driven baseline.

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 tool performs star/unstar operations on a segment for the authenticated athlete, with a specific endpoint. It distinguishes itself from getters and other put tools by its unique resource/action. However, it does not explicitly compare to any sibling tool, so it isn't a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the required scope but does not explain when a user would want to star/unstar a segment or how this differs from other segment-related tools. No exclusions or alternative instructions are given.

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