Add Segment To The Project Pattern

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

Annotations indicate not read-only, idempotent, and not destructive. The description goes beyond this by explaining return value ('Returns the modified segment on success'), error payload behavior with specific HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and partial update semantics. No contradiction with 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 description is structured and information-dense, covering purpose, usage, defaults, return value, and errors without unnecessary fluff. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return value, error semantics, partial update behavior, and parameter defaults. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already describes both parameters fully (100% coverage). Description adds that project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, but this contradicts the schema's required flag, creating confusion. segment_id is not further detailed beyond the schema.

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 it 'Updates an existing segment in the specified Procore project', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like remove_segment_from_the_project_pattern by indicating update semantics, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides clear usage context: partial update ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values'), a default for project_id, and required parameters. It does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool vs alternatives like list or create tools, but the context is sufficient for basic selection.

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