update_segment

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass change'), the significant side effect of subnet changes (gateway re-address and potential traffic drop), and the return/error contract. This gives the agent the behavioral awareness needed to use the tool safely. The traffic-drop warning is a side-effect disclosure, not a contradiction of destructiveHint=false.

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 compact and front-loaded: action and method first, then usage guidance, then risk warning, then return format. Every sentence carries essential information with no filler or repetition of schema contents.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It covers preconditions, alternative behavior, side effects, and the return/error shape, leaving no critical operational gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-level context by explaining partial-update behavior and warning specifically about the subnet parameter's network impact. It doesn't add detail for target or display_name, but those are already well described in the schema.

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 action ('Update an existing network segment'), the resource, and the method ('partial update via PATCH'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from create_segment and delete_segment, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does relative to its siblings.

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 gives concrete guidance: call get_segment first, prefer this over create_segment for existing segments, and check port_count before changing the subnet. It also explains why create_segment is the wrong choice (PUT overwrites everything). This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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