Renew Certificate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that renewal triggers NPM certificate renewal processing, may contact the certificate provider, returns the operation result, and that dry_run previews without changing NPM. It omits auth/permission requirements and idempotency or rate-limit behavior, so it falls short of full transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the sibling routing, and each sentence carries information. The dry_run behavior is stated once in the description and once in the schema, a mild redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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 2-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers side effects, provider contact, dry_run preview, and return shape, so an agent has what it needs. Auth/permission expectations are the only notable omission.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema (id sourced from list_certificates, dry_run preview behavior). The description restates both without adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Request renewal of an existing certificate by ID') and explicitly names the sibling tool create_letsencrypt_cert that handles the new-certificate case. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like create_letsencrypt_cert and list_certificates without opening any schema.

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 routing: use this for a certificate already managed by NPM, use create_letsencrypt_cert to request a new certificate. The condition that selects this tool over the alternative is unambiguous.

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