Update a credential

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description does not contradict these. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations: it does not state whether partial updates are supported, whether omitted fields are left unchanged or reset, or whether updating a credential affects hosts currently using it. With annotations already covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, but it repeats the title almost verbatim ('Update a credential' appears twice). The second sentence adds the ID-based targeting detail, which is useful, but the overall structure is redundant and could be condensed into one sentence that also carries usage or parameter guidance.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain what fields can be updated, whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens to hosts using the credential, or what the response contains. An agent has enough to guess the basic operation but not enough to call it correctly with confidence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description only mentions 'by its ID,' which maps to the required id parameter, but it does not explain the semantics of name or description, whether they are optional fields to update, or how partial updates behave. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Update a credential' and 'Updates a specific credential by its ID.' It is not a tautology, but it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like termix_credentials_apply_credential_host or termix_credentials_duplicate_credential, which also relate to modifying credential state. The title and description are nearly identical, adding little beyond the 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the credential must exist, whether the ID must be fetched first via get_all_credentials, or when to prefer create_new_credential or duplicate_credential. The description only says 'Update a credential,' leaving the agent to infer usage.

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