update_acme_certificate

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the obvious 'update' operation—it doesn't discuss apply_immediately effects, DNSSLEEP implications, or what happens to existing values. Thus it provides minimal value beyond what annotations already convey.

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 concise sentence: 'Update an existing ACME certificate entry by ID'. Every word contributes to the core purpose, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the rich schema (8 parameters, full descriptions), annotations, and output schema, the short description is adequate for locating the tool. It lacks any statement about what the update does with unspecified fields, but the schema's param details and annotations fill most gaps. Slightly more context about the tool's role in the ACME workflow would make it more 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 100%, so the schema itself thoroughly documents parameters (e.g., a_domainlist explains replacement vs. single-domain management, dnssleep describes network blocking scenarios). The description adds no parameter information, so baseline 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 'Update an existing ACME certificate entry by ID' uses a specific verb ('Update'), names the resource ('ACME certificate entry'), and specifies the lookup mechanism ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like create_acme_certificate, delete_acme_certificate, and even generic update_certificate by the 'ACME' qualifier.

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 implies usage when updating an existing ACME certificate, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that manage_acme_certificate_domain should be used for single-domain additions/removals, although that guidance appears in the schema's a_domainlist parameter description.

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