openwisp_update_cert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Replace' hints that this is a full overwrite (as opposed to PATCH), which is useful, but nothing is said about what replacement actually entails for a certificate — whether a new key pair is generated, whether existing serial/revocation state is destroyed, or what permissions are required. For an irreversible 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?

Very short and front-loaded: the category tag, the action sentence, and the endpoint mapping. The endpoint notation is arguably redundant but does aid traceability, and nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate — it conveys the action and the endpoint. It stops short of explaining the replace semantics, side effects, or prerequisites that an agent would need before calling a destructive certificate operation.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is well documented as 'Certificate UUID or ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Replace a certificate') and even names the underlying HTTP endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the very similar sibling openwisp_patch_cert, so an agent must guess between PUT-replace and PATCH-modify.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus openwisp_patch_cert, openwisp_renew_cert, or openwisp_revoke_cert — all of which live in the same certificate family. The PUT-vs-PATCH distinction is implied only by the raw endpoint notation, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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