Add an environment to a group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool 'Changes tenant configuration' and 'Mutates a live environment,' and that confirm:true is required to actually perform the change, otherwise it returns a dry run. It also names the underlying command ('pac admin add-group') and the use of the active profile. This is transparent about mutation and the dry-run behavior. It could add detail on reversibility or side effects, but the key behaviors are well disclosed. The repetition of confirm:true is minor.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and effect, then the confirm requirement, then the implementation detail. It is concise and avoids fluff. The only redundancy is stating confirm:true twice, which is slightly repetitive but not harmful. Overall, it is well structured and earns its place.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, the effect on the environment, the confirm requirement, and the underlying command. It does not mention prerequisites like the existence of the environment group or that the environment must be specified, but the schema clearly marks environmentGroup as required and environment as optional. It also does not describe return values, but no output schema exists. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly, though it could benefit from noting that the group must already exist.

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 baseline is 3. The description does reinforce the meaning of the confirm parameter by stating it is required for actual changes and that without it the tool is a dry run, which aligns with the schema. It also mentions 'active pac auth profile,' which matches the profile parameter's default behavior described in the schema. However, the description adds little new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so a 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: 'Put an environment into an environment group, which applies that group's rules to it.' This uses a specific verb (put/add) and a precise resource (environment into environment group). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like cs_admin_list_environment_groups by defining the mutation effect. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 context that this is a tenant configuration change and a live-environment mutation, and it stresses the confirm:true requirement for actual changes (with a dry run otherwise). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when to use this vs. another admin tool. Since there is no direct sibling that removes from a group or lists groups, the guidance is implicit rather than explicit. The confirm requirement is a clear usage instruction, but broader selection guidance is missing.

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