Update environment

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive (destructiveHint false). However, the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether changes trigger a redeployment, require permissions, or have side effects). With openWorldHint true, the description could clarify side effects but does not.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (29 parameters, nested objects, enums) and absence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not mention the required environment parameter, return value, or any effects of the update, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 each parameter is documented individually. The tool description adds a high-level grouping ('deployment settings, runtime, and attached resources') that aids understanding of the 29 parameters, meeting the baseline expectation without surpassing 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 description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'environment', and specifies the scope as 'deployment settings, runtime, and attached resources'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_environment or 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_environment for new environments, update_application for application-level changes). It lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection.

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