Update Bruno Environment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the merge behavior and preservation of existing variables, which go beyond a simple 'update' label. However, it does not mention what happens if the environment does not exist, whether the operation is idempotent, or any error conditions—minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key behavioral nuance. It is compact, easy to scan, and every word adds value. No redundancy or filler.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 required params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior, merge semantics, and a critical distinction from a sibling. It falls slightly short of a perfect score by not specifying return values or edge-case behavior (e.g., when variables are empty), but it is sufficiently complete for typical usage.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, including a description for 'variables' that states existing variables not listed are kept. The description's merge explanation mirrors the schema, adding no new parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the exact action: 'Partially update an existing Bruno environment by MERGING the provided variables into the existing ones.' It names the resource (Bruno environment) and the specific verb (update), making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from a sibling by explicitly contrasting with create_environment.

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 a clear when-to-use guideline by explaining that it merges variables and preserves unlisted ones, and explicitly says 'unlike create_environment, which replaces the whole file.' This tells the agent to use this tool for partial updates while preserving existing variables, and to use create_environment when a full replacement is intended.

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