delete_certificate

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description adds the crucial semantic that the operation is irreversible and requires user confirmation, plus the real-world dependency risk on load balancer services. It stops short of stating what the call returns or whether it fails when the certificate is in use, which would fully close the loop.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the risk, then the prerequisite check. Every clause earns its place with no redundant restatement of the name.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, user confirmation, and the dependency-check workflow, which is what an agent needs before invoking it. The only gap is failure behavior when the certificate is still referenced.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines 'id'. The description adds the useful but indirect signal that the id must correspond to a certificate whose used_by state has been verified, though it doesn't say what happens on an unknown id.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Delete a certificate") that matches the tool name and separates it from get_certificate/create_certificate/update_certificate siblings. It doesn't spell out the boundary against other delete_* siblings, but for a resource-scoped delete the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit pre-call workflow: confirm with the user first, then check used_by via get_certificate, then migrate any load balancer HTTPS services to another certificate. It names the alternative tool to use for the dependency check and the ordering constraint, leaving nothing to inference.

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