lucky_update_certificate

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (mutating, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar for added behavioral context is lower. The phrase 'complete native Lucky JSON object' adds genuine value by hinting at full-replacement semantics — the agent should send the whole object, not a partial patch. It does not, however, disclose what happens to omitted fields or whether the certificate must exist first.

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 15-word sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the mechanism ('key' + 'complete native Lucky JSON object') is packed into the same sentence without bloat.

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 write tool with a free-form nested object parameter, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. The critical unknown — the structure of the 'complete native Lucky JSON object' and where to obtain it — is unresolved, so an agent would need to discover the shape via lucky_list_certificates or api_catalog/api_describe before invoking 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning, and it does map 'key' to the certificate's identifier and 'value' to the full native object. But it stops there: no hint about the key's format, how to obtain the 'complete native Lucky JSON object' (e.g., from lucky_list_certificates), or what fields that object contains.

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 specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Lucky certificate'), and identifies the invocation mechanism ('using its key and complete native Lucky JSON object'). It is distinguishable from siblings by the verb+resource pairing (create/delete/list for certificates, update_* for other resource types), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with lucky_create_certificate.

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?

'Update ... using its key' implies the certificate must already exist, which is a mild usage signal. No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are given — lucky_create_certificate and lucky_list_certificates are never referenced, so the agent must infer the workflow from sibling names alone.

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