Update All Company Segment Items

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

Thoroughly discloses behavior beyond annotations: handles deactivation/reactivation, includes children, enforces restrictions on default cost type, requires attributes constraints, supports partial updates, defaults company_id from config, and details error scenarios (401, 403, 404). 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 dense but logically structured: purpose, constraints, parameter guidance, error handling, and endpoint. Every sentence provides value, though it could benefit from bullet points for readability. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested attributes, bulk operation, feature-specific behavior) and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, defaults, allowed keys, error payloads, return value, and API endpoint, leaving minimal gaps for an agent.

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 covers 100% of parameters with basic descriptions, but the tool description adds significant meaning: attributes constraint for cost types, partial-update semantics, company_id default, and segment_id resolution requirement. This goes beyond the schema, though not exhaustive.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update All Segment Items with the same attributes.' It further specifies the scope (company-level, segment items and their children) and distinguishes from single-item update tools by emphasizing bulk updates. The name and context differentiate it from project-scoped 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 context for when to use the tool: bulk status changes, cost type deactivation, and prerequisites like resolving segment_id via the matching list tool. It also states constraints (e.g., attributes must contain only status for cost types) and error conditions, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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