certificates_set_active_idp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a state-changing operation ('Set the active...') and states an authorization requirement ('Requires Write on Infrastructure'). However, it does not describe side effects, reversibility, failure cases, or what happens to the previously active IdP certificate.

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 two brief sentences with no filler. The core action and parameter are front-loaded, and the permission requirement is placed immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it names the operation, the parameter, and a permission requirement. However, it omits usage context relative to siblings, behavior when the thumbprint is invalid, and any result/confirmation information, leaving an agent with only the bare invocation path.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter's meaning. It only repeats that the operation happens 'by thumbprint', adding little beyond the property name 'thumbprint' and string type. It does not explain what a thumbprint is, how to obtain it, or the expected format.

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 identifies a specific action ('Set') and resource ('the active IdP certificate'), and it specifies the distinguishing input ('by thumbprint'). It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling certificate operations such as certificates_list_idp or certificates_download_idp.

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?

The description gives a permission prerequisite ('Requires Write on Infrastructure') but does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention that listing/verifying certificates would be done via siblings. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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