provider_update_certificate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond restating the operation; the only real signal is the verb PUT, which implies full replacement of the certificate object rather than a partial patch, but this is never spelled out. No mention of required privileges, whether the alias must be re-supplied, or what happens to the existing entry on failure.

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?

Two lines, front-loaded with the action, no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

This is a mutation on a security-sensitive object with a nested body and no output schema, so the description should say more: whether the body replaces the whole certificate record, whether the PEM is validated, and what is returned. With zero annotation-level detail on those points and no return-value information available elsewhere, the definition is thin for the operation's complexity.

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 nested body fields (alias, certificate) are documented in-schema, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the trustedCertificate path parameter or the body, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Updates an existing trusted certificate") and adds the exact endpoint, which pins down the REST resource. It is clearly distinguishable from provider_trust_certificate (create) and provider_query_trusted_certificates (list), but the description never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Beyond the word "existing" there is no guidance on when to use this versus provider_trust_certificate or provider_update_certificate_library_item, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer both the create-vs-update split and the trusted-certificate-vs-certificate-library split from tool names alone.

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