update_segmentUpdate a SendGrid contact segment's name or query criteria to adjust audience targeting. Provide the segment ID and the new data to modify.
Update an existing segment's name or query criteria
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New name for the segment | |
| query_dsl | No | New query criteria for the segment (JSON string) | |
| segment_id | Yes | ID of the segment to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate read/write behavior (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds no additional behavioral detail such as validation of query_dsl, behavior on unknown segment_id, or whether both fields may be updated together. No contradiction, but no extra context.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word adds meaning.
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 three-parameter update with supportive annotations, this is mostly adequate, but the 'or' ambiguity and absence of expected result/error behavior leave some gaps. It is enough to choose the tool, less enough to fully predict invocation outcomes.
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 covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'name or query criteria' loosely maps to the name and query_dsl fields but doesn't clarify whether both can be sent in one call or whether at least one is required beyond segment_id.
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?
States a specific verb ('Update'), resource ('existing segment'), and the two mutable aspects (name, query criteria). This clearly distinguishes it from list_segments, open_segment_creator, and delete_segment.
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 word 'existing' implies it is for modifying segments that already exist, which is an implied contrast with creation tools like open_segment_creator, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or sibling alternatives is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.