yaaif_agent_spec_update_segment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but does not mention optimistic concurrency via expected_version, validation rules, side effects, or what happens on version conflict. It also does not state whether partial updates are allowed or if all segment fields must be supplied. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids fluff and is easy to parse. While it could benefit from a second sentence on versioning or parameters, it is not verbose. The conciseness is appropriate given the minimal scope, though more detail would improve it without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a segment is, enumerate valid segment keys beyond examples, clarify the role of expected_version, or describe the return value. An agent cannot safely call this tool based on the description alone; it would need to infer behavior from the schema or external knowledge.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. However, it only lists example segment keys and does not describe spec_id, expected_version, segment_key, title, status, body_md, payload, or sort_order. The description adds no value over the bare schema parameter names, which are ambiguous without explanations. Required parameters like expected_version are not mentioned at all.

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 updates a single Scenario segment, listing example segment keys (overview, architecture, workflow_design, benefits). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like yaaif_agent_spec_update, which presumably updates the entire spec. The verb 'Update' and resource 'Scenario segment' are explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include yaaif_agent_spec_update, yaaif_agent_spec_upsert_slots, and others, but the description does not mention when to choose this segment-specific update over a whole-spec update or other operations. No exclusions or context for selection are given.

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