issue_acme_certificate

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by mentioning the ACME challenge/validation process, implying external interaction and potential delay. It does not contradict the annotations (write operation, idempotent, non-destructive). It could further disclose rate limits or prerequisite conditions, but the added process detail is valuable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds a meaningful detail. No wasted words or repetition of schema/annotations.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the ACME process and the schema provides the ID source. However, it does not mention prerequisites like needing an ACME account key or that the certificate must already be configured, which could be useful context.

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% for the single parameter 'id', which already explains the source ('from search_acme_certificates'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Issue') and resource ('ACME certificate from Let's Encrypt'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_acme_certificate (creating the entry) and renew_acme_certificate (renewing) by focusing on obtaining the certificate via the ACME challenge.

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 usage (when you need to obtain an ACME certificate) but does not explicitly distinguish from alternatives. It doesn't state 'use this for initial issuance, not renewal' or mention that the certificate must already exist as an ACME certificate. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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