splithub_segments

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose that delete removes a segment (a destructive action) and that property-scoping limits the save to one property. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether deletion is reversible, name-vs-id resolution behavior, or what listing returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the concept, then mode-routing, then an example — dense and free of filler. Slightly telegraphic fragments and the closing "SplitHub Cloud." tagline are the only non-earning elements.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers invocation well but never describes what the list mode returns or what a delete/save responds with. Auth requirements and error conditions are also unaddressed, leaving a moderate but real gap for an unannotated mutation-capable tool.

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 75%, so the schema does some work, but the description adds real value by giving a concrete filters example ({ country: "DE,FR", channel: "Paid Search" }) that explains the dimension→comma-separated-values convention, and by clarifying that property constrains the save to a single property rather than being a generic string.

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 the resource precisely — "named report filters every report can apply" — and enumerates where they apply (analytics, funnel, paths, retention), which is more than a name restatement. It doesn't need sibling differentiation because no other segment-oriented tool exists, though it could have clarified it versus the report tools it feeds.

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?

It gives explicit mode dispatch: no args returns the list, save+filters saves one, delete removes one by id or name — so the agent can pick the right invocation without opening the schema. It stops short of exclusions or preconditions (e.g., what happens if save is given without filters, or how delete resolves id vs name collisions).

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