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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Delete' aligns with that. The description adds useful context about the required scope, the exact API path, and that the same PassFast HTTP API, billing, and rate limits apply. It also warns not to invent other paths, which is helpful for an agent.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, then provides essential context in a few short lines. Every sentence adds value: the action, the scope, the operation mapping, and the warning about not inventing paths.

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 destructive single-resource operation with a simple schema and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the action, scope, endpoint, and operational constraints. It could mention the return value or error behavior, but the annotations and schema already cover the safety profile and parameters.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 deletes a certificate, identifies the exact OpenAPI operationId and HTTP endpoint, and specifies the required scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like uploadCertificate and listCertificates.

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 the required scope and notes that it maps to a specific OpenAPI operation, which helps an agent understand when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope and endpoint mapping give clear context.

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