Reflect: Add Segment

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

Annotations already establish that this operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds a meaningful prerequisite by requiring an 'active' recording session, but it does not disclose expected outcomes, failure modes, or side effects beyond the schema and 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 opening sentence is compact, front-loaded, and immediately conveys the core action. The parameter list is a bit redundant with the input schema, but it is short and organized, so the overall description remains efficient.

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 two-parameter mutation, the description covers the key prerequisite of an active recording session and both parameters are well-documented. It is adequate, but it omits useful context such as the need for the segment to already exist, related lookups for obtaining IDs, or what a successful call returns.

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%, so both sessionId and segmentId are already fully documented. The description repeats those same parameter descriptions without adding extra semantics such as how IDs are obtained, valid segment types, or expected data formats.

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 ('Insert') and resource ('a reusable test segment') with a precise target ('an active Reflect recording session'). This clearly distinguishes it from related reflect tools: it is not creating a segment (reflect_create_segment) and not adding a prompt step (reflect_add_prompt_step).

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 phrase 'into an active Reflect recording session' implies the intended use case: adding an existing segment while a recording session is active. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over reflect_create_segment, reflect_list_segments, or reflect_add_prompt_step, nor any 'when not to use' conditions.

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