Update Environment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'by id', such as whether this is a partial or full update, how omitted attributes are treated, whether ignored fields like slug matter, or any permission requirements.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is not the problem; the missing information is assessed under other dimensions.

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?

This is a complex nested mutation with a rich input schema and an output schema, but the description supplies almost no context about update behavior, partial-vs-full replacement, ignored fields, or required JSON:API envelope details. Annotations and schema cover some of this, but not enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool from the description alone.

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 50%, and the description only mentions the id parameter. It does not explain the data object, its required type and attributes structure, or the many nested updateable fields. The schema already documents id thoroughly, so the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what is structured.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a specific environment by id.' It is clear enough to distinguish this from get/list/create siblings by operation, though it does not explicitly name those 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_environment, create_environment, or update_environment vs other update tools. The only usage implied is that an existing environment with a known id is being changed.

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