Update environment metadata

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that testPoints is required and replaces the full assignment, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether other fields are patched or also fully replaced, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists the relevant fields, and highlights the critical testPoints behavior. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The tool has nested objects and no output schema, so the description should clarify update semantics (partial vs full) and expected response. It mentions the testPoints full-assignment but leaves similar behavior for rules/owners ambiguous, and does not address error conditions or permissions. Annotations cover safety, but behavioral gaps remain.

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 50%: the payload object has a description, but environment_id does not. The tool description lists the updatable fields and reiterates the testPoints requirement, but it adds little beyond the existing schema description and does not explain the semantics of each field or the ID format.

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 tool's function: 'Update an existing Cymulate environment' and enumerates the specific modifiable fields (name, tier, owners, testPoints, rules). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cymulate_env_create (creation) and cymulate_env_get (retrieval).

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 specifies 'existing' environment, implying this tool is for modification rather than creation or deletion, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool. Clear context is provided, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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