Cancel free TLS certificate

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the required certificates:manage permission, the mandate for explicit user approval, and the instruction to poll get_free_certificate to observe the outcome. This is more than the annotations convey.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the destructive scope is front-loaded, followed by the approval/polling workflow and the permission requirement. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the missing operational context: permission scope, approval gate, and result-verification path. No output schema exists, so it correctly does not attempt to describe return values.

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%, so both the UUID and the acknowledge boolean are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Cancel) and a precisely scoped resource: an owned pending free TLS certificate request, explicitly before issuance. This distinguishes it from revoke_free_certificate and cancel_certificate by lifecycle stage, though it does not name those siblings outright.

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?

Provides a clear workflow: read current state, get explicit user approval, then poll get_free_certificate for the final result, which names an alternative retrieval tool. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer revoke_free_certificate instead of cancelling.

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