hcloud_update_certificate

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

The description adds one piece of genuinely non-annotated behavior: a concurrent-modification on the object yields a "conflict" error, which is useful for retry logic. However, the annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description never explains what the destructive mutation actually affects (e.g., that supplied labels overwrite the existing set) or whether changes are reversible.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the action, which is good, but the middle sentence is redundant with the first and the conflict note is phrased ambiguously ("the Certificate object changes during the request") without stating how the agent should recover.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should indicate what a successful update returns (the updated certificate resource) and it does not. For a destructive, open-world mutation requiring both id and body, the description leaves the mutation semantics, permissions, and response shape unexplained.

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 only 50% and the description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate. It only says "properties" generically, giving no hint that the body carries name and labels, or that id is the target certificate.

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 verb+resource pair (Update a Certificate) is unambiguous, and the tool is clearly the certificate-mutation counterpart to create/delete/get certificate siblings. The second line ("Updates the Certificate properties.") is a near-restatement and never says which properties (name, labels) are updatable, so it adds almost no clarity beyond the name.

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 vs. alternatives such as hcloud_create_certificate, hcloud_delete_certificate, or hcloud_certificate_retry_action, nor any prerequisite or id-requirement context. An agent must infer everything about selection from the tool name alone.

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