scf_update_vendor_certification

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

Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds important behavioral context: partial update semantics ('Only passed fields change') and the editor role requirement. It also hints at side-effect-free updates by focusing on field changes. This goes beyond the annotations and is valuable for the agent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and role, then provides behavioral details and concrete examples. Every clause earns its place, and it's immediately scannable. No fluff.

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 tool with 11 parameters and 3 required, the description is fairly complete given the schema's high coverage. It explains partial update, gives use cases, and the schema handles parameter sources and constraints. It doesn't mention return values (no output schema) or prerequisites beyond the editor role, but these are not critical gaps. It could mention that the certification must already exist, but that's implied by 'update'. Overall, it's adequate.

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 the schema already documents all parameters with at least basic descriptions (e.g., org_id says 'obtain from scf_list_organizations'). The description doesn't add detailed parameter meanings beyond the partial update behavior, which is a general semantic rather than per-parameter. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description only marginally adds value here.

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 action (update), the resource (vendor certification), and the role (editor). It distinguishes from create/delete by emphasizing partial updates and providing concrete use cases like marking expired/revoked or renewing expiry date. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating 'Only passed fields change' and giving examples of when to use it (mark expired/revoked, record renewed expiry). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like scf_create_vendor_certification, but the 'update' verb and context make the distinction clear. It could be more explicit about when not to use it (e.g., for creation), but overall it provides adequate guidance.

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