openwisp_update_ca

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the HTTP method and endpoint but does not disclose permissions required, idempotency, side effects (e.g., impact on existing certificates), or what exactly gets replaced. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 one short sentence plus a category tag and HTTP endpoint. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words. The category and endpoint are arguably useful context, though not strictly necessary.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description omits critical context such as required permissions, what fields are replaced, side effects on existing certificates, and response format. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it safely and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as 'CA UUID or ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('CA'), and the HTTP PUT endpoint implies full replacement. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling openwisp_patch_ca, which is a partial update. An agent can infer the distinction from 'Replace' vs 'Patch', but it is not stated.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as openwisp_patch_ca (partial update) or openwisp_update_cert. The HTTP PUT method is the only contextual hint, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction.

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