zadig_environment_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It usefully reveals that dry_run defaults to true, implying a safe-by-default behavior, and that mode controls create vs. update. However, it fails to explain the auto mode behavior, the role of confirm in applying changes, or potential destructive/overwriting effects on existing environments.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and the mode/dry_run details are placed in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 high complexity (8 parameters, a nested required object, output schema) and zero annotations, this description is far from complete. It omits critical information about the environment object shape, confirm semantics, production flag, and how auto mode decides between create and update, making correct invocation unlikely.

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 adds partial meaning for only two parameters (mode and dry_run) but leaves the required 'environment' object, confirm, env_name, production, project_key, and allow_redacted entirely unexplained. The agent cannot correctly construct a call from this information alone.

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 a clear action ('Create or update a Zadig environment') with a specific resource, and the mode parameter hints at an apply-style operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools zadig_environment_create and zadig_environment_update, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the dedicated create/update/delete siblings. It mentions that mode can be auto, create, or update, but this is a parameter hint, not usage context about when to prefer apply over alternatives.

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