delete_certificate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Delete" implies a destructive, likely irreversible operation, but nothing is said about whether the certificate is revoked, what happens to websites bound to it, or what permission is required — a significant gap for a deletion 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?

The three-word phrase is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise — it omits any information an agent would need beyond the tool name, so brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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 mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine deletion consequences or the meaning of 'id' from the definition alone.

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?

The single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what the id refers to or where to obtain it (presumably list_certificates). With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete SSL certificate"), which is enough to distinguish it from the many sibling certificate tools such as list_certificates, get_certificate, create_certificate, obtain_ssl and renew_ssl. However, it adds no scope detail (which certificate, by what identifier) that would fully separate it from them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like renew_ssl, resolve_ssl or upload_ssl, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g., the certificate must not be in use by a site). Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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