deployado_set_env

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot express: values are merged with existing variables rather than replacing the map, and a redeploy may fire automatically as a side effect. It doesn't explain that overlapping keys are overwritten (which is why the tool is flagged destructive), so a small gap remains.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the merge behavior and redeploy side effect following in priority order. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the merge semantics, and the redeploy side effect, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits the overwrite behavior on duplicate keys and gives no hint about the response, keeping it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema fully documents both app_id (UUID) and the nested env key-value map with an example. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource phrase, 'Set or update environment variables for an app', which lets an agent distinguish this mutating tool from the sibling readers deployado_list_env and the destructive deployado_delete_env. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Merges with existing variables' implies this is the additive/update path rather than a replace or delete, giving implied usage. However, it never states when to prefer this over deployado_delete_env or when a redeploy must be done explicitly, leaving the agent to infer.

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