Reissue an SSL certificate

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

The description states that the subscription term is unchanged and no charge is made, which are important non-obvious behavioral details. It does not mention potential validation steps or whether the old certificate is invalidated, but the annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description does not contradict them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action and result, followed by the key differentiator and alternative. Parameter descriptions are concise and avoid redundancy with 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?

Given the output schema is present and the operation is well-scoped, the description provides sufficient context: the operation reissues, returns a new certificate, does not alter term/charge, and points to the alternative for renewal. No critical context appears missing.

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?

All three parameters are described with meaningful detail: subscriptionId and certificateId reference the source lists, and the body parameter explains encodedCsr and sanEntries, including the nuance that SANs are ignored unless multi-domain. This fully supports correct invocation.

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 tool reissues an existing certificate against a new CSR, gives a concrete example (key rotation), and distinguishes it from renewing the term. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core purpose.

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 explicitly provides a use case ('after a key rotation') and names the alternative tool for a different scenario ('to extend the term instead, use eurodns_ssl_renew_subscription'). This gives clear guidance on when to use this operation versus its sibling.

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