docs_add_environment

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real context beyond them: the per-language default-env rule, that re-registering is harmless and re-promotes the default, and that dependency indexing runs as a background job. It stops short of stating auth requirements or what gets mutated.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and args are cleanly separated, but the bilingual duplication ('register project, registrar proyecto') and the trailing Keywords list repeat the same information in two languages, adding length without adding selection value.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description documents the return shape ({environment, dependency_job_id, dependencies, message}), the accepted inputs, and the default-env consequence. Only the relationship to sibling tools remains unaddressed.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description carries the burden, and it does: 'path' is explained as an absolute path to a project folder, interpreter, or node_modules (with auto-detected venv/node_modules locations), and 'index_dependencies' is explained as indexing pyproject.toml/requirements*.txt in a background job. Both parameters get meaning beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb (register) and resource (project folder/venv/interpreter) plus the goal (so its packages can be checked). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling docs_index_folder, which sounds similarly scoped, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Implies when to use it ('so its packages can be checked') and notes re-registration is harmless and re-sets the default. But it names no alternative and gives no explicit when-not guidance versus docs_index_folder or docs_libraries, leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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