Update a profile segment

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

With annotations already marking this as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and destructive, the description adds meaningful context beyond them: 'Contacts are never modified, but which of them match the segment can change immediately.' This clarifies the real-world side effect of a destructive-sounding operation and is genuinely useful information.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a required-parameter note, a replace-vs-omit clarification, and a side-effect warning. Every sentence earns its place and the most critical semantic trap (replace, not merge) is front and center.

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 5-parameter update tool with a nested conditions array and no output schema, the description covers the essential ambiguities an agent would face: when name is needed, how conditions behave, and what side effects occur to contacts. The schema handles the detailed condition structure and logic requirement, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, but the description adds important behavioral meaning to parameters: name is always required even for a pure conditions update, omitting conditions preserves them, and supplying conditions replaces them wholesale. This goes beyond the schema's minimal 'name parameter' and 'Replaces the existing conditions entirely' notes, though it does not add anything about the logic parameter that the schema does not already say.

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 opens with 'Rename a segment and/or replace the conditions that define it,' which is a specific verb+resource statement covering the tool's two distinct actions. This clearly differentiates it from segment creation, deletion, listing, and retrieval siblings without needing to name them.

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 gives clear parameter-level guidance: 'name is always required', 'Omit conditions to rename without touching the conditions', and conditions replace the existing set entirely rather than being merged. It does not explicitly name alternatives like create or delete, but the context of modifying an existing segment is clear and unambiguous.

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