set_segment_enabled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the requirement for confirm and the dry_run default, which imply mutability. However, it does not explain what happens on execution, error conditions, or rate limits. It adds some behavioral context but is incomplete.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential usage prerequisites. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity, the description is adequate for basic usage but lacks information about return values, success/failure indicators, or error handling. It does not fully compensate for missing structured output information.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between confirm, dry_run, and execution, clarifying that confirm must be true to execute, which is not fully captured in the parameter descriptions.

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 verb 'Enable or disable' and the resource 'Interaction Studio segment'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_segments and get_segment, which are read-only.

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 explicitly mentions prerequisites (IS_WRITES_ENABLED=true and confirm=true) and the default dry_run behavior, providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools.

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