cm_add_segment_rulegroup

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

No annotations are provided for behavioral cues like readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. The description only mentions the additive nature but fails to disclose other behavioral aspects such as error conditions, idempotency, or rate limits.

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 a single sentence that conveys all essential information without any unnecessary words, front-loading the action.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core action and key differentiator. Missing minor context like prerequisites or effect on existing rule groups.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, which already describes the Rules array as AND-combined and segmentId as a string.

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 adds a rule group to an existing segment, with the specific verb 'Add' and resource 'rule group'. It distinguishes from siblings like cm_clear_segment_rules by highlighting 'without removing current rules'.

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 provides clear context by stating the tool does not remove current rules, implying alternatives if replacement is needed. However, 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.