update_crl

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive update, so the description does not need to convey safety. However, the description adds no details beyond the obvious 'update' action—it does not clarify whether the operation is a partial update, whether setting a field to null clears it, or whether changes require an additional apply step. This leaves behavioral gaps despite the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the action, resource, and key differentiator. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple 3-parameter update tool with a valid output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important behavioral context about update semantics (e.g., whether null clears a field, whether it is a partial update). The schema covers identifiers and field types, but the description does not fully orient an agent on how to invoke it correctly beyond the basic purpose.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter (crl_id, descr, lifetime), so the description does not need to duplicate that. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter semantics; the description itself adds no parameter-level detail.

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 ('Update') on a specific resource ('Certificate Revocation List (CRL)') and identifies the key selector ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_crl, delete_crl, and search_crls, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 the tool is for modifying an existing CRL identified by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention prerequisites like searching for the CRL first. The input schema's reference to 'array index from search_crls' adds guidance, but that is outside the description itself.

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