update_segment

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

Annotations already flag this as non-readonly and non-destructive; the description adds that this is a PATCH partial update and that changing subnet can drop traffic for attached VMs, which is valuable side-effect information. No contradictions with annotations.

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 dense but well-structured, starting with purpose and usage guidance before a brief Args list. Each sentence carries information; no filler.

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 an update tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the operation mode (PATCH), side effects, prerequisite checks, and return value (updated dict or error). It lacks only extended details like authentication, but that is not needed for selection/invocation.

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 0%, but the description provides clear explanations for all four parameters: segment_id is from list_segments, display_name is optional, subnet format example, and target defaults from config. This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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?

Description opens with '[WRITE] Update an existing network segment (partial update via PATCH).' It clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (network segment), and distinguishes from create_segment by noting that create overwrites everything.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to 'Use get_segment first' and to 'prefer this over create_segment for an existing segment' because create is a PUT that overwrites everything. It also warns to check port_count before changing subnet, providing concrete when-to and when-not-to guidance.

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