ssl_delete_domain_cert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the destructive nature of the action, the requirement to confirm, and the ACME skiplist side-effect. It does not discuss irreversibility, permissions, or impact on live services, but the confirm requirement is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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 a one-line summary followed by a compact Args list. Every line adds information, and the most important fact—delete one certificate from a domain—is front-loaded. There is 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers the parameter semantics, a key prerequisite (cert_id source), and the confirm requirement. It lacks explicit notes on permissions, reversibility, or failure behavior, and the 'confirm: Required' note slightly conflicts with the schema marking confirm as optional with a default of false.

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%, but the description documents all five parameters with meaningful semantics: cert_id is sourced from ssl_list_domain_certs, update_acme_skiplist controls future ACME management, impersonate is the owning user, and confirm is required. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete one certificate from a domain.' It clearly identifies the domain-scoped nature of the operation, distinguishing it from server-level SSL tools like ssl_server_certificate and ssl_reissue_server. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does.

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 gives useful invocation context: cert_id should come from ssl_list_domain_certs, impersonate identifies the owning user, and update_acme_skiplist controls whether ACME manages the name again. It clearly implies the prerequisite of listing certs first. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use this tool, but no sibling offers the same delete-domain-cert behavior.

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