ACME Certificates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the risk profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful extra context by stating that certificate operations 'requires elevated' permissions and that config is a retrieval action. It does not detail side effects of revoke or force renew, but the annotations plus clear action names carry most of that burden.

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 with the core verb/resource front-loaded and the action categories laid out immediately. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 3-parameter, multi-action tool with no output schema, the description covers action selection and the important elevation requirement. It does not explain return shapes or prerequisites such as an existing ACME account, but the full schema coverage and annotations provide enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by clarifying the action enum, and it corrects the misleading schema description 'Order new ACME certificate', which would otherwise under-represent renew/revoke/config. The node and force parameters are already well described in the schema.

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 names the resource ('ACME certificates') and breaks the tool into concrete actions: order, renew, revoke, and config. The action list makes the tool's scope fairly clear, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like proxmox_acme_info or proxmox_acme_account, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives some usage context by separating 'certificate ops (requires elevated)' from 'action=config: get ACME config', and it flags an authorization prerequisite. However, it does not say when to prefer a sibling tool or when not to use this tool; the guidance is implied mostly by the action names.

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