proxmox_acme_cert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that some actions require elevated privileges, but omits details such as potential side effects (e.g., revocation effects), success/failure indicators, or whether config retrieval is read-only. The transparency is minimal.

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, compact sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and action categories using a pipe-separated format. Every word adds value; there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool has multiple modes of operation (three certificate actions plus config), the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks information about expected outputs (no output schema present), prerequisites beyond 'elevated', or error scenarios. For a multi-action tool, more detail would improve completeness.

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?

Although input schema descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), the tool description adds meaningful context by grouping the 'action' parameter values into two categories: certificate ops (order, renew, revoke) vs config, and hints at privilege requirements. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Order new ACME certificate' description for action.

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 it manages ACME certificates and enumerates four specific actions (order, renew, revoke, config), distinguishing certificate operations from config retrieval. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like proxmox_acme_account or proxmox_acme_info, which share the ACME domain.

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 basic guidance by noting that certificate operations (order, renew, revoke) require elevated privileges, but it does not explain what 'elevated' means nor when to choose this tool over alternatives like proxmox_acme_account. No explicit when-not-to-use criteria are given.

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