update_certificate_reissue

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining PUT replacement semantics, idempotency, server-side auth injection, throttling/retry behavior, return format, and specific error statuses. All of this is consistent with the annotations: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false.

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 organized into labeled sections and packs in dense useful information without fluff. It is somewhat long, but the complexity of the endpoint justifies the length. Front-loads the core purpose and HTTP method before details.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers request semantics, response format, error handling, authentication, rate limits, and usage strategy. The related sibling tools are named, and the agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool 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?

The description clarifies that the entire JSON payload goes into the `body` argument and is forwarded verbatim, and notes that despite the spec marking `body` optional, this endpoint expects one. This adds meaningful guidance over the schema, which leaves `body`'s top-level description empty. The `id` parameter is straightforward from the schema.

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 clearly states the tool updates/reissues a certificate identified by its id, using PUT /v2/certificates/{id}. It explicitly differentiates itself from related certificate tools including delete_certificate_revoke_invalidate and get_certificates, and references the create tool as the alternative for records that do not exist.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' guidance: only when the user wants to change an existing record. It instructs to read the record first before overwriting, and directs the agent to use the create tool if the record does not exist. This is strong, actionable routing guidance.

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