pws_update_segment

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses several meaningful behaviors: transactional writes, live-show validation, post-save verification, and a preview/confirmation safety gate. This is rich, non-redundant context that significantly helps an agent predict side effects and workflow.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds behavioral or usage information. It is dense yet highly scannable, with no redundant wording.

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 complex nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow (preview then confirm, transactional safety, verification). It doesn't specify the return format or details on constructing changes, but the schema handles field structure. The description is complete enough for selection and safe invocation.

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 schema covers 50% of top-level parameters with descriptions, and the description adds key semantics for preview and confirmed (must be false/true to mutate). However, the 'changes' object has many undocumented fields, and the description only says 'Preserves unrelated fields' without explaining how to structure changes. This is adequate but not fully compensating.

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 a specific verb ('PREVIEW OR UPDATE') and resource ('ONE EXISTING MATCH/ANGLE'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling update/removal tools. It also communicates partial-update semantics with 'Preserves unrelated fields,' making the 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 explicitly states this is for previewing or updating an existing match/angle, and it provides a critical usage condition: 'requires preview=false plus confirmed=true to mutate.' However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond 'existing,' so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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