create_crl

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations. It does not disclose requirements like the existence of a valid Certificate Authority reference (caref) or what happens if a CRL already exists for the CA. The annotations already indicate a non-readonly, non-destructive operation, but the description itself contributes no extra 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?

The description is a single sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately brief for a simple create operation, though it could include additional context without becoming verbose.

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?

While the schema documents all parameters and an output schema exists, the description lacks important context such as dependency on an existing CA, whether creating a CRL affects existing resources, and any post-creation steps. The tool has moderate complexity and would benefit from additional 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?

The schema provides concise descriptions for all four parameters, including caref and descr, with 100% coverage. The description does not mention parameters but does not need to, as the schema already defines them clearly.

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 'Create a Certificate Revocation List (CRL) on pfSense' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like update_crl, delete_crl, and search_crls. It is explicit and unambiguous.

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 implies that this tool is for creating a CRL but does not mention when to use it versus alternatives such as update_crl or delete_crl. There is no explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name.

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