Update Certificate

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false), and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as permission requirements, side effects, or response 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 sentence of 5 words, extremely concise. While it efficiently conveys the core purpose, it could include more context without becoming verbose. It is front-loaded but lacks depth.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema) and existing annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits details about return values, validation constraints, or typical usage patterns that would aid an agent in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description's mention of 'name or labels' aligns with the schema parameters. However, the description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, meriting a baseline score of 3.

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 a certificate name or labels' clearly states the verb (Update) and the resource (certificate), and specifies the updatable fields (name or labels). This is distinct from siblings like create_certificate or delete_certificate, providing clear purpose differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as hetzner_get_certificate for inspection or hetzner_create_certificate for new ones. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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