Update DataLens cloud environment

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the call returns an operation (valuable since there is no output schema) and flags the experimental, untested status, but says nothing about which fields are optional, how omitted fields are treated, or storage-related failure behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence is meta-commentary about API maturity rather than tool behavior, which is slightly off-purpose but does not bloat the definition.

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?

With annotations carrying the safety profile, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials and notes the returned operation. It is adequate but thin for a mutation tool: no prerequisites, no statement that unspecified fields are left unchanged, and no note on the storage-fails-if-no-bucket constraint that the schema hints at.

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 all five parameters (id, name, storage, description, security_group_ids) are documented inline. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the generic phrase 'the fields given', so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change the fields given of a cloud environment') and implies partial-update semantics, distinguishing it from the create/get/list/delete siblings in the cloud environments family. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the action is 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives such as datalens_cloudenvironments_create or _delete. The only guidance-like content is the experimental warning, which advises caution but does not help the agent choose this tool over another.

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