environments_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation and mentions requirements, but lacks details about side effects (e.g., environment state changes, propagation to preview), optimistic locking via fingerprint, or error conditions. The [WRITE] label is helpful but insufficient.

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?

Two sentences with a clear [WRITE] label and essential requirements. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place. Ideal 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 the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not explain return behavior, error handling, optimistic locking, or what happens after a successful update. An agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool safely and effectively.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that 'confirm' must be true, reinforcing its role as a safety check. However, it does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema for other parameters, such as the purpose of fingerprint or the optional fields.

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 'Update' and resource 'GTM environment', with a [WRITE] prefix indicating it's a mutation. This distinguishes it from read-only environment tools like environments_list and environments_get, but does not explicitly differentiate from environments_create or environments_reauthorize.

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 provides prerequisite conditions: requires GTM_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true and confirm=true. This gives guidance on when the tool can be invoked but does not explain when to use this tool vs. alternatives like environments_create for new environments or environments_reauthorize for token refresh.

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