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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the critical behavioral nuance that tokens replaces the design wholesale and must be sent as a full object rather than a partial key set. It also discloses the Build-plan authorization requirement, both of which are valuable beyond the structured annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation, followed by the key behavioral caveat and the prerequisite. No filler, and every sentence contributes information the agent needs.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the main gotcha (full-object replacement) and the plan gate. It could say more about partial updates of name vs tokens, but it is largely complete for a 3-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both id/name/tokens parameters and all nested token fields are documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description's note about tokens being a wholesale replacement duplicates the schema's own tokens description rather than adding new meaning.

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 ("Updates a certificate template"), clearly distinguishing it from create_certificate, delete_certificate, get_certificate, and list_certificates by resource and operation. However, among the many sibling update_* tools, it does not explicitly differentiate scope beyond the resource name.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The only conditional content is the plan requirement ("Requires the Build plan or higher"), which is a prerequisite rather than routing guidance for selecting this tool over siblings.

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