star-segment

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the mutation (star/unstar) but does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, required auth scopes, or what happens if the segment is already starred/unstarred. The mention of 'authenticated athlete' hints at authorization but lacks detail.

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 concise sentence: 'Stars or unstars a specific segment for the authenticated athlete.' It front-loads the action and contains no superfluous words, making it highly efficient.

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 simple 2-parameter boolean action, the description covers the core purpose. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent receives no information about return values, errors, or behavioral nuances. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps around expected outcomes and edge cases.

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 100%, with both segmentId and starred having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The schema sufficiently explains each parameter's purpose.

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 action: 'Stars or unstars a specific segment'. It specifies the resource (a specific segment) and the actor (the authenticated athlete). This distinguishes it from siblings like list-starred-segments, which lists segments rather than modifying their star status.

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 implicitly conveys usage: use this to change the starred status of a segment. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, such as using list-starred-segments to view stars or get-segment for details. No exclusions are stated, so it is minimally sufficient but lacks explicit guidance.

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