Segment an object (advanced)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It honestly discloses that this is a raw, unvalidated passthrough and that the body must match the server contract. However, it does not mention response format, side effects, auth requirements, or error behavior, so the behavioral disclosure 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 compact and front-loaded with the operation and endpoint, and each sentence contributes information. The only minor redundancy is that 'Advanced' in the title is echoed by 'Advanced:' in the description.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a free-form body, the description is not self-sufficient. It points to external files/UI for the exact contract and omits response and error details, so an agent cannot reliably construct a valid request or understand the result from the definition alone.

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?

The schema only describes body as a raw request object, while the description adds that it must contain a click point and view selection, and points to external contract references. This adds meaningful guidance for constructing the body, even though scan_id receives no extra explanation.

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 identifies the action as SAM-3 click segmentation via POST /segment, and the 'raw passthrough' framing distinguishes it from higher-level scene tools. It names the exact operation and resource, so an agent can differentiate it from siblings like scene_object_complete or scene_object_variants.

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 advanced/raw passthrough language implies this should be used when the full server surface must be reached, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative wrapper. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly scoped against sibling tools.

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