update_segment

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the description. The description adds the PATCH method and partial update behavior, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements, side effects, or response format. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description adds moderate value.

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 efficiently structured with a title line and bullet-point parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the action and parameters well but does not explain the return value or potential error conditions. Given moderate complexity, additional details about the response or usage constraints would improve completeness.

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. It thoroughly explains all four parameters: segment_id (required ID), display_name (optional new name), subnet (optional new CIDR), and target (optional NSX target, defaults to default). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema types and titles.

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 'Update an existing network segment (partial update via PATCH)', specifying the verb (update), resource (network segment), and method (PATCH). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_segment and delete_segment.

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 provides clear context that the tool is for updating an existing segment, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusion conditions. However, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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