Update an environment

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

Annotations declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: values are replaced wholesale rather than merged, and setting the default unsets the prior default. It does not discuss permissions, error behavior, or reversibility, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation scope before the edge-case semantics. No filler, no repetition of the title, and each sentence adds a distinct fact.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations already convey the safety profile; the description supplies the mutation semantics an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around null handling for `name` and the account-id header, but nothing critical is missing for a correct call.

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 only 20%, so the description must carry the load, and it does the most important part: it explains the replace-vs-merge semantics of `values` and the side effect of `defaultEnv`, which the schema cannot express. It leaves environment_id and the account-id header undocumented, so it does not fully compensate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an environment') and enumerates the mutable fields: name, default flag, and variable values. It is clearly distinguishable from create/get/list_environment siblings by implication, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 clause 'Only the fields supplied are changed; omitted fields are left untouched' implicitly tells the agent when this tool is appropriate (partial edits) versus create_environment, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or prerequisite guidance.

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