Update Bruno environment

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one important constraint (preserving secrets with secret: true), but it omits that variables form a replacement list, whether unspecified variables are removed, and what the operation returns. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 no redundancy. The primary purpose is stated first, and the critical secret-preservation constraint is added immediately without unnecessary detail.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the replacement semantics, the effect on omitted variables, or the expected return value. The secret warning is helpful but leaves important operational context uncovered.

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 parameters. The description's secret-preservation note adds emphasis but largely duplicates the schema's 'Existing secrets must keep secret: true.' Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') and the resource ('an existing Bruno environment file'), which distinguishes it from environment creation tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'Existing' implies this tool is for modifying an already-created environment rather than creating one, providing weak usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over bruno_create_environment, bruno_get_environment, or other siblings.

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