Remove Segment From The Project Pattern

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that the tool 'Moves the Work Breakdown Structure records to its new position and returns the updated object,' providing context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., on associated data) or permission requirements, so it provides moderate added value.

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 concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes an API reference. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. It could be slightly shorter but is well-structured.

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 explains the high-level effect, required parameters, and mentions the endpoint and output ('returns the updated object'). However, it lacks details on error conditions, permissions, or idempotency (though annotations cover idempotency). The phrase 'Moves the Work Breakdown Structure records' may be ambiguous. Sufficient for a simple tool but not comprehensive.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The description merely restates required parameters ('Required parameters: project_id, segment_id') without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Remove segment from the project pattern'), identifies the resource ('Work Breakdown Structure records'), and explains the effect ('updates existing WBS records, moves to new position, returns updated object'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_segment_to_the_project_pattern'.

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 says 'Use this to update an existing Work Breakdown Structure records' and lists required parameters (project_id, segment_id). However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or compare with alternatives, which would improve clarity.

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