Add an environment to a group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that this mutates tenant configuration, that it is a live mutation requiring confirm: true, that omitting confirm yields a dry run, and that it shells out via 'pac admin add-group' under the active auth profile. It stops short of 5 only because it doesn't cover outcomes such as what happens if the environment is already in the group.

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?

It is short and front-loads the purpose, but it wastes space by stating 'requires confirm: true' twice in nearly identical form ('Changes tenant configuration: requires confirm: true' and 'Mutates a live environment: requires confirm: true'), which reads as padding rather than emphasis.

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 7-parameter, mutation-oriented tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential agent-facing concerns: mutation, confirm/dry-run behavior, and the underlying pac invocation. Minor gaps remain around idempotency and the background job path described in the schema, but nothing critical is missing.

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 seven parameters including confirm, profile and background; the baseline here is 3. The description restates confirm semantics already in the schema without adding new parameter meaning (e.g. group name vs id resolution).

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Put an environment into an environment group') and adds the consequence ('applies that group's rules to it'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, name any sibling (e.g. cs_admin_list_environment_groups) to distinguish membership assignment from group listing, so it stops short of a 5.

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 does convey the key precondition (requires confirm: true, otherwise a dry run), which is genuine usage guidance. But it never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives like cs_admin_create_environment or cs_admin_list_environment_groups, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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