update_environment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. However, it only states 'Update an existing environment' and does not mention side effects, permissions, whether all fields are overwritten or merged, or the result of the update. It adds little beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 single-sentence description is extremely concise and front-loaded, containing no filler or redundant wording. Every word earns its place, making it an efficient and well-structured minimal statement.

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 complexity (a mutation with nested objects) and the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens on update (e.g., whether values replace existing ones, required fields, error conditions), leaving significant gaps for the agent to interpret the tool's behavior and expectations.

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 covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any parameter semantics, but the schema provides detailed descriptions for each field (e.g., 'The UID of the environment to update', 'Name of the environment'). The schema does the heavy lifting, and the description neither adds nor contradicts it.

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 phrase 'Update an existing environment' uses a specific verb ('update') and a specific resource ('environment'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_environment, delete_environment, or get_environment. It unambiguously states the tool's action and target, meeting the highest standard for purpose clarity.

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 alternatives. It does not mention, for example, that create_environment should be used for new environments or delete_environment for removing them. The agent is left to infer usage context solely from the tool name and sibling list.

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