create_environmentCreates a new environment in Rootly from provided data, including name, color, description, properties, Slack channels, and notification emails.
Creates a new environment from provided data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare write, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no permission requirements, no side effects, no note that name must be unique or that slug is derived and ignored, and no response shape context despite this being a mutation.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no padding, so structure is fine. However, for a tool wrapping a nested object with nine attributes, this level of brevity reads as under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.
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?
Given a complex nested input, an output schema, and annotation coverage, the description omits nearly everything an agent would need: what constitutes valid environment data, slug derivation, defaults, and permission requirements. The schema carries most of the weight, leaving the description incomplete for a creation tool.
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?
The top-level schema description coverage is reported as 0% and the 'data' wrapper is unexplained; the description says only 'from provided data'. Nested field descriptions exist in the schema (name, deprecated slug, color, properties), but the description does not add or clarify any of that semantics.
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 and resource ('Creates a new environment'), which distinguishes it by name from list/get/update siblings, but 'from provided data' adds nothing and the description never explains what an environment is in this product. It is adequate but thin.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as update_environment or of how create differs from other creation tools. The agent gets no help choosing this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.