Change paid certificate validation

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

Annotations already declare destructive, idempotent and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds the certificates:manage permission requirement, the mandatory approval gate, and the retry rule (reuse the key / refresh and read state rather than minting a new key). It does not say what the change disrupts for in-flight validation, which would have pushed this higher.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then preconditions, then the edge-case rule. No waste, though 'Read current validation' is slightly vague about which tool is meant.

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 destructive, 5-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, approval, permissions and retry behavior. The main omission is the set of valid validation_method values and any statement of what the change affects, but the essential calling information is present.

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 coverage is 60%, but the description compensates meaningfully: 'one authorized DNS name' clarifies domain, 'obtain explicit approval' maps to acknowledge_certificate_action, and 'instead of using a new key' explains idempotencyKey reuse semantics. It adds no guidance on acceptable validation_method values, which is the remaining gap.

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 (change), resource (validation method), and precise scope: one authorized DNS name on an owned paid TLS certificate order. The 'paid' and 'one DNS name' qualifiers distinguish it from free-certificate siblings and from recheck/resend/get validation tools.

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 prerequisite sequence — read current validation and list_certificate_actions first, then obtain explicit approval — and a conditional rule for ambiguous outcomes. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like recheck_certificate_validation or resend_certificate_validation, so the agent must infer when those are preferable.

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