update_environment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it updates an environment. It misses critical behavioral details: whether this is a destructive operation, permission requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to unchanged variables. 'Update' implies mutation, but transparency is insufficient for safe use.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and a key usage tip, making it efficiently structured.

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 complexity (mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, error information, and output expectations, making it inadequate for safe and effective use despite good schema coverage.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by implying partial updates ('Only include variables that need to be modified'), which aligns with the optional 'values' array but doesn't elaborate beyond schema details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing environment'), specifying it modifies only variables that need changes. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_environment' by focusing on updates, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_api' or 'update_collection'.

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 minimal guidance with 'Only include variables that need to be modified,' which hints at partial updates but lacks explicit when-to-use context, prerequisites, or alternatives. No comparison to sibling tools like 'patch_collection' or 'update_environment' specifics is given.

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