create_certificate_authority

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating but not destructive operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by revealing that import and internal generation route to different API endpoints, which is important for understanding why the 'method' parameter exists and how the tool behaves internally.

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 exactly two sentences: a clear purpose statement and a useful implementation note. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 (14 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is appropriately minimal. The schema documents every parameter and their conditional requirements, so the description does not need to reproduce that. The routing note adds valuable context for a dual-mode operation. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating which parameters are required for import vs. generation, but the schema covers this.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with all 14 parameters having meaningful descriptions (e.g., 'required for import', 'required for ECDSA generation'). The description only adds a note about routing on 'method', which is partially redundant with the schema's method description. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Create or import a Certificate Authority on pfSense'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_certificate (which creates certificates, not CAs) and update_certificate_authority (which modifies existing CAs). It also accurately reflects the dual modes of operation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to create a new CA or import an existing one. The sentence 'Import and internal generation use different API endpoints; this routes on method' implicitly explains that the 'method' parameter selects the use case. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but given there is no sibling tool for creating a CA, this lack is acceptable.

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