Contract Testing: Update Environment

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

The annotations already indicate that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds little behavioral context beyond restating that it updates metadata, such as what happens to unspecified fields, whether displayName and teamUuids are replaced in bulk, or what the API returns on success.

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 opening sentence is concise and informative, but the parameter list duplicates the input schema almost verbatim. This redundancy means not every line earns its place, though the overall structure is readable and not excessive.

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 five-parameter update tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain the effect of omitting optional fields, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or what result the caller should expect, which are relevant gaps given there is no output schema.

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. The description repeats the parameter names and required flags without adding new meaning, which meets the baseline but does not go beyond what structured data provides.

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'), the resource ('an existing environment'), and the scope ('metadata'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like create_environment and delete_environment. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus create_environment, delete_environment, or list_environments. The description implies the user already knows they want to update an existing environment, but it does not state conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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