Update API Environment

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

The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) by disclosing that sensitive variable values are masked in the result and that production is blocked by workspace policy. These additions help an agent reason about mutation side effects and output handling. No contradiction with annotations — 'Updates' is consistent with readOnlyHint: false.

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, purposeful sentences: purpose, security/masking behavior, and policy constraint. Zero wasted words; each sentence earns its place and is front-loaded.

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 there is an output schema (reducing the need to document return values) and given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the most important operational nuances (masking, prod block). However, it leaves the key update-semantics question unanswered — whether passing a partial variables array replaces or merges existing variables — which is critical for a mutation tool like this. The 'through the command bus' detail adds minimal value.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it partially does by naming 'name and variables' and adding the masking nuance relevant to variable values. However, it doesn't clarify the semantics of the `enabled` field on each variable, how `workspaceId` resolves, or whether the variables array is a full replace or a merge — a critical distinction for an update tool.

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?

'Updates an API environment name and variables' uses a specific verb, specific resource, and names the exact fields being modified. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_environment, delete_environment, and list_environments by stating the scope of the update. The naming of specific fields (name, variables) removes ambiguity about what the update covers.

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?

'Dev/test allow it; prod blocks by workspace policy' provides explicit context on which environments support this operation, preventing wasted calls in production. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say 'use create_environment to create, this to update' — the sibling contrast is implicit rather than stated.

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