putEnvironment

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

Annotations indicate idempotent, not read-only, not destructive. Description adds behavioral constraints (30MB limit, Content-Length header handling) and specifies 'replaces all contents', which is useful beyond annotations. No 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?

Description is concise: one sentence for purpose, then bulleted notes. It front-loads the main action and provides essential constraints without fluff. The structure is clean and efficient.

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 mutation tool with nested object parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and constraints. It could be more explicit that 'replaces all contents' means removing unspecified variables, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond schema explanations; the notes about request body size are a general constraint, not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'replaces' and the resource 'all the contents of an environment', distinguishing it from createEnvironment (create) and getEnvironment (get). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as for a full overwrite vs. partial update. It provides notes on request size and error handling but lacks usage context or prerequisites.

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