ChangeKMServerCertificate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('Change') but does not specify required permissions, whether the change is reversible, potential impacts on server functionality, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without any structural waste.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with nested objects), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not address parameter meanings, behavioral implications, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use the tool correctly.

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 0% description coverage, with two required parameters ('id' and 'body') that are undocumented. The description does not explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., server identifier) or what 'body' should contain (e.g., certificate details), failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Change') and the target resource ('certificate for a KMS server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'ChangeCloudCertificate' or 'ChangePrivateKeyForCreds', which also involve certificate or credential modifications, so it lacks specific sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other certificate-related tools in the sibling list. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for application, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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