manage_acme_certificate_domain

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

The description clearly states the tool can 'remove' domain entries, which is destructive, but the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction. The schema further reinforces the destructive nature by requiring a confirm flag for delete operations, making the annotation inconsistency severe.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence. The second paragraph adds valuable context about ACME validation and alternatives without redundancy. It earns its length, though slightly verbose with the background explanation.

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 high schema coverage, an output schema, and the presence of sibling tools, the description provides sufficient context by explaining per-entry behavior and contrasting with update_acme_certificate. It doesn't explain return values, but that is not required when an output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters, so the description carries little additional parameter-level meaning. It does add high-level context about validation methods, but the schema already handles parameter semantics thoroughly.

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+resource: 'Add or remove a domain (SAN) validation entry on an ACME certificate.' It clearly distinguishes itself from update_acme_certificate by noting that it manages entries one at a time rather than replacing the entire a_domainlist array, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 context on when ACME domain entries are needed and explicitly contrasts this tool with update_acme_certificate for full-replace operations. It implies the appropriate use case for per-domain management, though it doesn't enumerate explicit 'when not to use' scenarios beyond the alternative.

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