env_revise

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. '更新环境' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify whether this is a partial or complete update, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response contains. For a complex 10-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, this is critically insufficient.

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 extremely concise at just two characters, with zero wasted words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, technically it meets the criteria of being front-loaded and having no unnecessary 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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage), the description is completely inadequate. It provides no meaningful context about what the tool does, how to use it, what parameters mean, or what behavior to expect. This is particularly problematic for a mutation tool with extensive configuration options.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning all 10 parameters and their complex nested structures are undocumented. The description '更新环境' provides no information about any parameters, their purposes, or how they relate to environment updates. It fails completely to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 '更新环境' (Update environment) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'env_revise' (environment revise). It lacks specificity about what 'environment' refers to in this context or what aspects are being updated. While it indicates a mutation operation, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'env_create' or 'group_revise'.

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. There are multiple sibling tools that modify environments (env_create, env_remove, env_transfer_group, group_revise) and related operations, but the description offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate use cases, or when to choose this specific update tool over others.

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