Move Cymulate agent to a different environment

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

Beyond annotations, the description adds the HTTP method and path (PUT /v1/agents/change-environment), the prerequisite that the target environment must already exist, and permission requirements on both source and target envs. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, but for a simple move operation, this is sufficient. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false).

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 four concise sentences, each providing essential information: the action, the endpoint, prerequisites, and permission details. No fluff or redundancy—every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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 moderate complexity (a state-changing move operation with two parameters and no output schema), the description covers the key prerequisites (target environment existence, permissions) and points to relevant sibling tools for obtaining IDs. It does not mention the return value on success or failure modes, but these are not critical for correct invocation. Overall, it provides sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters, including how to obtain each ID (e.g., 'obtain from cymulate_agents_list_connected or agents_list_all'). The description's mention of 'query params id (agent ID) and envId (target environment ID)' merely restates the schema, adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Move a Cymulate agent to a target environment,' specifying the exact action and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the specific PUT endpoint and focusing solely on environment changes, which no other sibling tool addresses.

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?

It provides explicit prerequisites: 'Requires the target environment to already exist' and directs users to cymulate_env_list for discovering env IDs. It also notes permission requirements on both source and target, giving clear context for when this tool should be used. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements, but the guidance is strong.

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