Manage push certificates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds that deletion demands confirm:true. It does not say whether delete is irreversible, whether add/edit have prerequisites, or what happens on duplicate cert types, leaving meaningful behavioral 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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the resource and the action mapping, and no filler. Slightly compressed to the point of terseness, but nothing is wasted.

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?

This is a 4-action tool with a free-form nested 'fields' object, no output schema, and 29% schema coverage, yet the description never explains what fields add/edit/delete require or what list returns. For that complexity, the definition is under-specified.

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 only 29% across 7 params, so the description must compensate; it does explain the action enum semantics, lists valid certtype values (ios/IOSP8/IOS_PUSHKIT/HARMONY), and flags confirm. It says nothing about app, limit, offset, or the structure of the nested fields object, which is the biggest unknown for add/edit/delete.

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 gives a specific verb set (query/add/edit/delete) against a specific resource (push certificates) and enumerates which action enum values do what. It is clearly distinct from siblings like yunxin_app_keys or yunxin_app_third_push, though it never explicitly says how it differs from them.

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 per-action mapping (list = query, add/edit/delete = mutate) implies which action to pick, and the confirm:true requirement for delete is a concrete usage rule. However, there is no guidance on when this tool is the right choice versus sibling certificate-adjacent tools such as yunxin_app_third_push or yunxin_app_custom_push.

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