zadig_environment_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the dry_run default and a confirm requirement, which is a useful safety signal for a mutation tool. However, it does not explain whether the update applies immediately, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens when confirm=false; the statement 'requires confirm=true' also conflicts subtly with the schema default of confirm=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 a single sentence with the safety default front-loaded, so it is easy to parse quickly. But for a tool with 8 parameters and a nested free-form object, this level of brevity is underspecification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 parameter count, nested object, and lack of annotations, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It communicates the dry-run/confirm gate but leaves the meaning of 'environment update', the contents of the environment object, the interaction of confirm/dry_run/production, and the relationship to sibling diff/apply tools entirely unexplained. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be detailed, but the input and effect side of the tool is under-specified.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for 8 parameters, including a free-form nested 'environment' object. The description only references dry_run and confirm, leaving env_name, environment, project_key, production, allow_redacted, and update_global_variables without any explanation. Because 'environment' accepts arbitrary additional properties, an agent has no idea what payload to construct.

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 names a specific action ('Update') on a clear resource ('Zadig environment'), so an agent can identify the core purpose. However, it mostly restates the tool name and gives no detail about what aspects of the environment can be changed, nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like zadig_environment_apply or zadig_environment_diff.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over related alternatives such as zadig_environment_create, zadig_environment_delete, zadig_environment_apply, or zadig_environment_diff. The single sentence states a dry-run/confirmation requirement, which is a guardrail, not a usage guideline.

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