Update the validation approver of a certificate name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds useful details — that only one certificate name is affected and that it returns the updated validation — but does not disclose downstream consequences such as whether changing the method triggers a new validation cycle or invalidates the current one. No contradiction with 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the action and return value, the second delivers the usage trigger and prerequisite pointer. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation with a nested body, output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger condition, and the lookup dependency well. The one meaningful gap is not explicitly routing agents between this tool and eurodns_ssl_resend_approver_email when the approver can still receive mail, though the trigger phrasing implies the distinction.

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%, and the schema already explains that approver must come from the allowedApprovers list and that verificationMethod has an enum with per-method behavior details. The tool description reinforces the connection to eurodns_ssl_get_validation, but adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Changes the validation method or approver address for one certificate name and returns the updated validation.' This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like eurodns_ssl_get_validation, email-resend siblings like eurodns_ssl_resend_approver_email, and broader operations like eurodns_ssl_reissue_certificate.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use it when the current approver cannot receive the email,' which implies the alternative case where the approver is reachable. It names eurodns_ssl_get_validation as the prerequisite lookup for allowed approvers, but does not explicitly discuss the adjacent alternative eurodns_ssl_resend_approver_email or state a when-not-to-use condition.

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