Create Letsencrypt Cert

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden: it discloses that the request is sent to NPM, may contact Let's Encrypt, what is returned (cert object with ID, domains, status), and that dry_run previews without mutating. It omits auth/permission requirements, idempotency on re-request, and Let's Encrypt rate-limit implications, which matter for a certificate-issuance tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by routing guidance, behavior, and return shape. Slightly crowded by the return-value sentence, which is redundant with the output schema.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, alternative, external side effects, and preview mode. Remaining gaps are low-severity (permissions, rate limits, failure behavior) but not blocking for correct selection.

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 all four parameters are already documented, and the description only restates dry_run semantics already present in the schema. It adds no syntax, constraints, or interaction details (e.g. dns_challenge vs email) beyond structured data.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Request a new Let's Encrypt certificate for the supplied domains') with an explicit statement of what it does not do, and it names the closest sibling create_proxy_host_with_letsencrypt so the agent can distinguish the two without reading schemas.

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 when-to-use condition ('when a certificate is needed without creating a proxy host') and names the alternative plus its differentiating behavior (create_proxy_host_with_letsencrypt also creates an HTTPS-forced host). No inference required.

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