import_certificate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It notes the operation is an import (mutation) and requires existing base64 data, but does not disclose whether it overwrites certificates, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. Minimal beyond usage context.

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 sentences, all carrying distinct value: purpose, usage condition, and alternative. Front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 an import tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core decision (existing vs. new certificate) and the base64 requirement. It does not mention return values or side effects, but the schema handles parameter details. Slightly above baseline due to the clear alternative guidance.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions the base64-encoded data requirement, which aligns with the 'data' parameter, but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states 'Import an existing certificate into Arc' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling create_cert by explicitly noting the difference between importing an existing certificate and generating a new one.

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 explicit when-to-use: 'Use this ONLY when you already have a certificate file and need to upload it.' Also names the alternative for new certificates: 'To generate a NEW certificate from scratch, use create_cert instead.' This is clear guidance.

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