Contract Testing: Update Environment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only metadata is modified (not deployment records) and that name and production are required, implying a full-replacement update rather than a partial patch. It does not say what happens to omitted optional fields such as teamUuids or displayName, nor whether existing values are cleared.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and clear, but it is followed by a toolset label and a full parameter list that duplicates a 100%-covered schema. Roughly half the text does not earn its place given the structured fields already available.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover idempotency and safety. What remains missing is the semantics of partial updates — whether omitting displayName or teamUuids leaves them unchanged or clears them — which matters for a mutation tool with two optional fields.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters, and the description's parameter list repeats those definitions nearly verbatim. It adds no new meaning such as format constraints, whether teamUuids replaces or appends, or the consequence of renaming the environment. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 and resource: "Update an existing environment's metadata." This clearly distinguishes it from contract-testing_create_environment, contract-testing_delete_environment, and contract-testing_get_environment by the verb alone, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of create_environment or delete_environment, and no stated prerequisites such as needing a valid environmentId from list_environments. The only usage signal is the word "existing," which an agent must infer means the environment must already be present.

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