Recompute segment

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

Annotations already establish it as a mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds real value: it only applies to DYNAMIC segments, it forces immediate re-evaluation versus waiting for the normal refresh, and it returns the recomputed state. It stops short of stating cost/latency or failure modes for STATIC segments, but adds meaningful context beyond the 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?

Bold-header structure front-loads purpose, exclusion, return, and trigger, with no filler sentences. Slightly heavy on formatting scaffolding for such short content, but every line earns its place.

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 single-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the closest alternative, the return value, and the triggering condition. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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% with a single documented 'id' (Segment UUID) parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the id beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 (recompute/force re-evaluate) and resource (segment), and narrows scope to DYNAMIC segments. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling plunk_refresh_segment_count, so an agent can pick between them without opening schemas.

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 'Use when' clause gives an explicit trigger (contacts or events changed and the segment must be current before sending), and the 'Not for' clause names the cheaper alternative and when to prefer it. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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