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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the consequence of setting status to 'revoked' (verify endpoint rejects). However, it does not mention other effects like reversibility, permissions, or the behavior for 'active' or 'expired' statuses, leaving some gaps.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the action and then adds a critical behavioral hint. It is free of fluff and perfectly front-loaded.

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 simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral consequence. It omits some potential details (e.g., return values or error handling), but given the low complexity, the description is largely sufficient.

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 parameter meaning. It explains the 'revoked' status specifically, which adds semantic value beyond the bare enum. However, it does not elaborate on 'id' or the other statuses ('active', 'expired'), relying on the schema's self-explanatory names.

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 verb 'Change' and the resource 'certificate status', specifying exactly what the tool does. It is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like verify_certificate or create_certificate.

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 provides clear contextual guidance by explaining that 'revoked' should be used to invalidate and that the verify endpoint will reject such certificates. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, the tool's purpose is niche enough that this context is sufficient.

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