Reissue paid TLS certificate

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, so the description's contribution is additive: it names the required permission (certificates:manage), warns never to send a private key, and requires explicit approval. It stops short of describing rate limits or rollback semantics, but adds real context beyond the annotations.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the constraints and warnings. Dense but every sentence carries operational value; no filler.

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, permission-gated mutation with no output schema, the description covers permission requirements, approval, name constraints, and ambiguity handling. It is nearly complete, missing only details on failure modes or the shape of the resulting action record.

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 67%, and the description meaningfully supplements it by tying 'new public CSR' to the csr parameter and 'keep the paid DNS name set unchanged' to common_name/alternative_names. It also implies the acknowledge_certificate_action flag via 'obtain explicit approval', though idempotencyKey and the exact order-id source are left to the schema.

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 and resource ('reissue of an owned paid TLS certificate') and scopes it as a 'free same-name reissue using a new public CSR'. This clearly separates it from siblings like create_free_certificate, renew_free_certificate, cancel_certificate, and refresh_certificate.

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 explicit prerequisites ('Read the product, current order and list_certificate_actions'), constraints ('keep the paid DNS name set unchanged'), and approval requirements. It also supplies an explicit when-not branch: on ambiguous outcome, refresh and read state rather than reissue with a new key.

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