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, indicating it modifies safely. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'update metadata'. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 one sentence plus a parameter list, which is concise and front-loaded. However, the parameter section is somewhat redundant with the schema. No wasted words.

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 simple update tool with annotations, the description covers the basic operation. However, it lacks any mention of return value or side effects. Given no output schema, the description could clarify what is returned.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description lists all parameters with names and required status, matching the schema. It adds no extra meaning like constraints, examples, or interdependencies, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Update an existing environment's metadata.' The verb 'Update' and resource 'environment' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_environment' and 'delete_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 implies usage through its name and purpose but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_environment' or 'delete_environment'. No when-not or context is given.

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