Delete segment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: permanence, that contacts are unaffected, and the downstream side effect that campaigns targeting the segment lose their audience. It does not quantify scope (e.g., member count impact) but the key risk is disclosed.

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?

Four short labeled blocks, front-loaded with purpose and counter-indication, zero filler sentences. 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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, exclusions, the return value ('Confirmation of the deletion'), and side effects. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke 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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('Segment UUID'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline when the schema already does the work.

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 and resource ('Permanently delete a segment') and immediately clarifies scope with 'The contacts themselves are untouched.' It also names the sibling it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from plunk_remove_segment_members without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit 'Not for' section names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, and 'Use when' gives the trigger plus the consequence (campaigns lose their audience). Nothing is left to inference.

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