combell_ssl_certificate_requests_create

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

The description explicitly discloses a critical side effect: 'SIDE EFFECT: this purchases a paying product at your contract's (non-promotional) price.' This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive. It also describes the CSR subject requirements and the required follow-up steps, adding valuable behavioral context. However, it does not mention reversibility or error behavior.

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?

The description is concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose, then the side-effect warning, then the CSR requirements and next steps. Every sentence is essential with no fluff, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, side effect, multi-step workflow) and no output schema, the description covers the critical side effect, CSR content requirements, and the necessary next steps. It does not describe the response format or error scenarios, but these are less critical given the annotations and schema. It is fairly complete for a create tool with financial implications.

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 only 50%, with csr and additional_validation_attributes having descriptions. The description compensates partially by specifying the CSR subject must contain CN, C, ST, L, O, E, and all SANs, which is not in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning of certificate_type or validation_level enums, though those values are fairly self-explanatory. It adds some value but does not fully bridge the coverage 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Order an SSL certificate from a certificate signing request (CSR).' This clearly states the action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list/get/verify, which operate on existing requests or certificates. The follow-up workflow (get domain validations, then verify) further clarifies its role as the creation step.

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?

The description implies usage by outlining the creation step and the subsequent validation/verification process, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of 'use this when you need a new certificate' or exclusions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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