pve_order_node_certificate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Order new ACME certificate' implies a write operation that may involve external ACME services, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or if it triggers certificate installation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses precise terminology ('ACME certificate'). Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'ordering' entails (e.g., ACME challenge process), what the return value might be (success/failure, certificate details), or error conditions. Given the complexity of certificate operations, more context is needed.

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 100%, with both parameters ('node' and 'force') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., what 'force' means in practice or node naming conventions). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Order new ACME certificate' clearly states the action (order) and resource (ACME certificate), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_renew_node_certificate' or 'pve_list_node_certificates', but the verb 'order' suggests initial acquisition rather than renewal or listing.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., ACME configuration), when to use 'force' renewal, or how it differs from 'pve_renew_node_certificate' (a clear sibling). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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