Replace an existing connection credential by ID in OpenWISP, updating the stored credential used for device or controller connections via the API.
[Category: Devices & Controller] Replace a connection credential. (HTTP PUT /api/v1/connection/credential/{id}/)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Credential UUID or ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (PUT, i.e. replacement) but says nothing about permissions, what happens to omitted fields, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response contains — a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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?
Two short fragments plus the category tag and endpoint; front-loaded and free of padding. Nothing is wasted, though the endpoint reference adds little semantic value.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It never explains what data a credential replacement requires or what the result looks like, leaving the agent under-informed despite full schema coverage on the id.
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% ("Credential UUID or ID"), so the single parameter is already fully documented. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.
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?
"Replace a connection credential" gives a specific verb (Replace) and resource (credential), and the PUT endpoint hints at full-replacement semantics. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is distinguished from (openwisp_patch_credential for partial updates), so differentiation is left implicit.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. The word "Replace" plus the PUT verb implies this is the full-update path versus patch, but the agent must infer that rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.