Bind a certificate to a Lucky listener

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

Annotations already convey that the operation is mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it attaches a certificate and enables TLS, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose side effects such as replacing an existing certificate or impacts on active traffic.

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?

Two tightly written sentences deliver the core action first and the selection mechanism second, with no filler. Every clause contributes actionable information.

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?

The description covers the main action and listener selection, but with no output schema it omits expected return values, error behavior when the listener or certificate is not found, and whether multiple selector parameters can be combined. This leaves moderate gaps for an agent trying to predict the tool's response.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the listener-selection parameters: rule_key, listen_port, and domain as a hostname already on the listener. The required cert_key is only implied as the certificate identifier, so its meaning is not fully explicit.

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 states a specific action, 'Attach an existing Lucky certificate to a web listener and enable TLS,' with a clear verb, resource, and outcome. It distinguishes itself from certificate-management siblings like add/sync/list certs by emphasizing 'existing' certificate and binding to a listener.

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?

It provides clear invocation context by explaining that an existing certificate is used and that the listener can be selected via rule_key, listen_port, or a hostname already on that listener. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a perfect usage-guideline score.

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