ssl_create_csr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral traits. It identifies the operation as creating a CSR, but does not disclose side effects, whether an existing slot is required, idempotency, permissions, or downstream consequences. The commercial CA flow note adds context but not behavioral detail.

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 purpose, followed by a brief argument list. The arg list is justified because the schema has no descriptions. No filler or redundant prose.

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 4-parameter mutation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is thin. It does not explain where this step fits in the commercial CA flow, what prerequisites are needed, or how it relates to SSL siblings. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but other contextual gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It provides terse but useful semantics: common_name defaults to the domain, and impersonate identifies the owning user. There are no formats, constraints, or examples, but the essential meaning of each parameter is present.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a CSR for a domain certificate slot'. The parenthetical 'commercial CA flow' adds useful context that distinguishes it from self-signed or ACME flows. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of full 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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over related siblings like ssl_reissue_domain, ssl_install_self_signed, or ssl_upload_cert_files. The phrase 'commercial CA flow' hints at a use case but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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