Update a test environment in TestMonitor by unique identifier. Supports partial updates, so send only the fields you want to change.
Update an environment. Update a test environment using its unique identifier.
This endpoint supports partial updates, so you only need to include the fields you want to change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description does not address any of these behaviors. It does not explain that updates may overwrite existing fields, whether they require specific permissions, or what the side effects are. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still adds little beyond generic update language.
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 two concise sentences, front-loading the action and then adding a key behavioral note about partial updates. No redundant or filler content.
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 that annotations highlight destructive and non-idempotent behavior, and there is no output schema, the description should provide more context about what happens on update, what is replaced, and any prerequisites. It is too minimal for a mutation tool with these annotations.
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 0% (no descriptions in schema), and the description provides no parameter details. However, the parameters are straightforward (a path ID and a body with name/description fields), and the nested structure is implied by 'fields you want to change'. Baseline would be lower, but the description's mention of 'partial updates' slightly compensates for the absent schema descriptions.
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 (update) and resource (test environment) and clarifies that identification is by unique identifier. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like delete_test_environment or get_test_environment beyond the obvious verb.
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 mentions partial updates (only fields to change), which implies a usage pattern, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over a full replacement or other environment tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.