delete_certificate

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds the stronger context that the operation is 'irreversible'. This goes beyond the annotation by emphasizing permanence, which is valuable for a delete operation. However, it doesn't describe the confirm/dry_run workflow in the description itself.

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?

Two short sentences with the warning front-loaded. No unnecessary words, making it very easy to parse quickly.

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 simple destructive operation, the schema's clear safety-gate parameters (confirm, dry_run), and an output schema, the description covers the essential context. The irreversibility warning and ID reference are sufficient for an agent to understand the operation.

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 the schema fully documents all parameters including confirm and dry_run. The description adds no additional param semantics beyond 'by ID', which is already clear from the schema.

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 states 'Delete a certificate by ID', using a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_certificate_authority or delete_crl. The identifier detail adds precision.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The irreversibility warning implies caution, but the description doesn't suggest using search_certificates first or leveraging the dry_run/confirm parameters. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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