Update Environment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'Update', which merely implies mutation. It does not disclose whether the update merges or replaces fields, how the fingerprint affects the operation, permission requirements, or side effects.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler. It is slightly terse but earns its place by stating the action and resource.

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 input schema and output schema carry much of the load, including the environment object and fingerprint semantics. Still, the description alone gives no guidance on update semantics or alternatives, leaving an agent to infer the full context.

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 already documents every parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the input schema provides.

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 names the action ('Update') and the resource ('a container environment'), so an agent can tell what the tool operates on and can distinguish it from read/delete environment tools. It does not explicitly disambiguate against sibling update_* tools, but the resource qualifier is enough to make the purpose clear.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and resource: use this tool to modify an existing container environment. There is no explicit indication of when not to use it or which alternative (create_environment, delete_environment, reauthorize_environment) would be more appropriate.

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