putEnvironment

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by noting the 30MB request body limit and the Content-Length header workaround. Annotations already indicate idempotence and non-destructive nature; the description reinforces the replacement behavior without contradiction.

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 concise: one sentence for the core function and a short paragraph for important notes. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though the notes could be integrated more tightly.

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?

While the description covers the main functionality and key constraints (body size), it lacks information about the return value or response format. For a mutation tool, especially without an output schema, describing what the agent can expect would improve completeness.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description does not add any new meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score of 3.

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: 'Replaces all the contents of an environment.' This is specific and distinguishes it from related tools like 'createEnvironment' and 'getEnvironment', though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. For example, it doesn't say to use this for full replacements versus partial updates (if any). The only usage notes are about request body size and error handling, not context of use.

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