mgmt_segment_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Update segment,' implying a mutation but offering no details on side effects, required permissions, idempotency, error handling, or the response format. The body hint is present but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise, containing no fluff or redundant information. The URL and the core action are front-loaded, and the body hint is placed immediately after. It is efficient, though perhaps too sparse; but for conciseness, it earns a high score.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a free-form body parameter, this description is incomplete. It doesn't specify required fields inside the segment object, behavior on success/failure, or any constraints. An agent lacks critical information to reliably invoke the tool.

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% with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the body structure as {'segment': {...}}, which is not in the schema and clarifies the expected JSON shape. This extra semantic detail justifies a 4.

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 'Update segment' with a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling operations like mgmt_segment_create, mgmt_segment_get, and mgmt_segment_delete. It also hints at the request body structure, which clarifies the operation's target. However, it doesn't elaborate on which segment properties are updatable, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having an existing segment), no contrast with mgmt_segment_create for new segments, and no conditions for when not to use it. An agent must infer its role from the name and sibling list.

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