update_certificate_authority

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

Annotations already disclose idempotency (idempotentHint: true), non-read-only nature, and non-destructive nature. The description adds no new behavioral detail beyond repeating 'idempotent'. It does not explain update semantics (e.g., partial update vs. replace) or authorization needs, but annotations mitigate some safety transparency gaps.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. The parenthetical '(idempotent)' is a useful trait but not redundant with the name. No filler or extraneous content.

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 an update tool with multiple optional fields, the description does not specify the effect of omitted or null parameters—whether it performs a partial update or requires all fields. This is a meaningful gap for correct invocation. The presence of an output schema and annotations reduces the burden, but the update semantics are critical and not covered.

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%, with each parameter having a description including ca_id's origin. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, such as whether null means 'leave unchanged' or 'clear the field'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Update'), target resource ('existing Certificate Authority'), and scope ('by ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_certificate_authority, delete_certificate_authority, and search_certificate_authorities. The parenthetical '(idempotent)' is an attribute, not the core purpose, but does not obscure it.

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?

Usage is clearly implied: use when modifying an existing Certificate Authority, as opposed to creating (create_certificate_authority), deleting (delete_certificate_authority), or searching. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or reference to sibling alternatives, and the prerequisite of obtaining the ca_id from search_certificate_authorities is only in the schema, not the description.

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