infomaniak_delete_certificate

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description reveals the fallback behavior, the two-phase commit, and that the plan phase exposes current certificate status. This adds valuable context without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Key information is front-loaded: the action and its immediate effect. The structure is efficient and clear.

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 destructive nature and two-phase flow, the description covers the essential behavioral context (fallback, undo). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Minor omission: no mention of prerequisites like owner permissions.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add additional information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 deletes the SSL certificate of a site and specifies the consequence (fallback to no HTTPS or default cert). It distinguishes itself from siblings like infomaniak_get_certificate and infomaniak_request_certificate by mentioning the two-phase commit and the undo option.

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 explicitly outlines the two-phase commit process: omit token to get plan+token, re-pass to execute. It also provides an undo alternative via infomaniak_request_certificate. However, it does not specify when *not* to use this tool, though the destructive nature is implied.

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