star_segment

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

The description indicates a state-changing operation ('star or unstar') but lacks additional behavioral context such as side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but fails to disclose important behavioral traits like whether it requires write permissions or returns any confirmation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, the 'Args' section is redundant given the input schema, making it slightly less efficient. Overall, it's appropriately short but could be trimmed to just the first sentence.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover what the tool returns after starring/unstarring (e.g., success message or updated segment data) and any error conditions (e.g., invalid segment_id). It does neither, leaving the agent with incomplete context for proper 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description should compensate with parameter details. The description merely repeats the field names and types from the schema, adding minimal value (e.g., explaining that 'starred' is True for star, False for unstar). It does not clarify what 'segment_id' refers to (e.g., Strava segment ID) or provide examples.

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's purpose: 'Star or unstar a segment.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_starred_segments (view only) and explore_segments (search). However, it could be more precise by specifying the scope (e.g., for the authenticated athlete).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_starred_segments to view currently starred segments). There are no explicit usage contexts, prerequisites, or recommendations. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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