certificates_update_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only exposes the HTTP method and path; it does not explain permissions, side effects, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or what happens to omitted fields. This is effectively no behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 but contains a duplicated endpoint ("(PATCH /v1/certificates/{id})") that adds no information. It lacks a clear purpose sentence and instead presents an endpoint fragment, so it is not well structured despite its brevity.

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 a nested request body, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not describe the updateable fields, prerequisites, or response shape, leaving the agent unable to understand what the update actually does without external OpenAPI lookup.

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 documents both the id and body parameters. The description adds only a pointer to components.schemas.CertificateUpdateRequest, which is the same reference already present in the body property description, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 is essentially a restatement of the HTTP endpoint ("PATCH /v1/certificates/{id}") rather than a natural-language purpose statement. It implies an update to a certificate from the PATCH verb and resource path, but does not say what kind of update or what fields are involved, making it largely a tautology of the tool 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as certificates_get_instance, certificates_delete_instance, or certificates_create_instance. The agent must infer from the HTTP verb that this is for updates, with no stated preconditions or alternatives.

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