order_node_certificate

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It hints at ordering and renewing but omits details like whether it contacts external servers, what happens if a certificate is already valid, or if the operation is destructive. The force parameter is minimally explained.

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 extremely concise with two lines and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with purpose and contains no redundant 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?

Given the complexity of certificate ordering (potential async tasks, error conditions, output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not mention return values, waiting times, or failure modes. An output schema exists but its content is not described.

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?

The description adds brief explanations for both parameters beyond the schema ('The node name', 'Force renewal even if not due'), but these are minimal. Schema coverage is 0%, so more detail would be beneficial, especially on valid node formats or force semantics.

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 action ('Order/renew'), resource ('ACME certificate'), and scope ('for a node'). This distinguishes it from sibling ACME tools like register_acme_account or list_acme_accounts.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., existing ACME account), or conditions under which renewal is appropriate. The description only lists parameters without contextual usage advice.

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