certify_data_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the effect (setting a certification seal of one of three states), which reveals that this is a mutating operation. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to existing certifications, whether deprecated conflicts with other states, or any permission/access requirements for a mutation with zero annotation coverage.

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 efficient sentence that conveys the action and the enumeration of possible values. It is appropriately minimal with no filler, though it could have added value within the same 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?

Despite having an output schema, this is a mutating tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage. The description explains the core function but omits important context: prerequisites (e.g., must the product be published first?), effects on visibility/access, transition rules between certification states, and what the response indicates. For a state-changing operation this is insufficiently complete.

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 parameter meaning. It indicates the 'certification' parameter values implicitly ('verified, certified, deprecated'), partially covering that parameter. However, 'product_id' is left entirely to the schema, and there's no explanation of how these values are serialized (exact string matching?) or any constraints on transitioning between states.

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 action ('Qualitätssiegel setzen') targeting a specific resource (data product) with explicit possible values (verified, certified, deprecated). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like publish_data_product or sync_data_product_to_atlas, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditional context (e.g., only after publishing, or requires ownership). It doesn't say when NOT to use it or which sibling tools cover related but different scenarios, leaving the agent to infer context from the purpose.

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