Update Segmentation Tree

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

With annotations already marking the tool as destructive and idempotent, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: only supplied parts are replaced, node and outcomes replace whole structures, and folder filing is conditional. It does not mention locking, permissions, or concurrency prerequisites, so it falls short of a 5.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted language. The main purpose comes first, followed by important replacement and folder semantics.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral risks: partial replacement and whole replacement of node/outcomes. It does not address locking or prerequisite workflow, but those are not clearly required by the available structured fields.

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 beyond the terse schema descriptions by explaining whole-structure replacement for node and outcomes and by clarifying that folder is only used for trees not yet in a folder.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Change a segmentation tree's working revision." It also clarifies the scope by saying only provided parts are replaced, which distinguishes it from creation tools. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling create_segmentation_tree as the alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by "working revision" and the replacement semantics, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over create_segmentation_tree or create_segmentation_tree_from_table. It does provide a useful conditional for folder behavior, but no broader when/when-not guidance.

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