Remove Segment From The Project Pattern

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

The description contradicts the annotations: it describes a PATCH-like update ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values') while annotations include destructiveHint=true and the tool name indicates removal. This is a serious inconsistency that would mislead an agent about the tool's side effects. The error code and return value details are helpful, but the contradiction nullifies transparency.

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 detailed but somewhat verbose, containing eight sentences that include API category, endpoint, and error codes. It front-loads the (misleading) purpose and provides structured error information, but it repeats schema information like 'Required parameters: project_id, segment_id' and could be more concise. It is not excessively long, but not optimally tight.

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?

The description covers return values and error scenarios, but the fundamental mismatch between the tool name/remove semantics and the 'update' framing leaves the tool's actual behavior unexplained. It does not state that this operation removes a segment from the project's WBS pattern, which is essential context. The error codes and default behavior add value, but the core purpose is misrepresented, making the overall description incomplete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context (project_id defaults to procore_set_config value, segment_id is a JSON body field), which is useful. However, the described update semantics are confusing when the only updatable field appears to be segment_id, and there are no additional fields to change, which reduces clarity.

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 a clear verb and resource ('Updates an existing segment in the specified Procore project'), but this directly contradicts the tool name 'remove_segment_from_the_project_pattern' and the endpoint path 'patterns/remove_segment'. The action is specified but misleading, undermining the agent's ability to understand what the tool actually does.

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 like add_segment_to_the_project_pattern or update_project_patterns_segment_order. It only mentions required parameters and project_id defaults, which are invocation details rather than usage context. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present.

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