Revoke free TLS certificate

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: revocation permanently invalidates the certificate, requires certificates:manage, and the follow-up read tool for observing the final state.

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 its gating preconditions, then the consequence and the permission requirement. 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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers permission needs, irreversibility, approval gating, and where to observe the result. The missing piece is disambiguating from cancel_free_certificate and explaining the reason enum.

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%, so the id and acknowledge parameters are partly documented by the schema. The description's phrase 'obtaining explicit user approval' implicitly maps to acknowledge_free_certificate_action, but it adds nothing about the reason enum or the required UUID format. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Revoke an owned free TLS certificate') and scopes it to owned certificates. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very close sibling cancel_free_certificate, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 clear preconditions: check the certificate's state first and obtain explicit user approval before revoking. It also points to get_free_certificate for the resulting state. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or the alternative tool (cancel_free_certificate).

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