manage_haproxy_frontend_certificate

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful context about SNI-specific behavior and the distinction between additional and default certificates, which is not inferable from the schema alone. It does not disclose actions beyond create/delete, but the schema confirms destructive operations, so this is adequate.

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 action, and includes a helpful cross-reference. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, an output schema, and annotations. The description covers the tool's purpose and the key alternative path. While it doesn't mention the confirm requirement for delete or return value details, these are already present in the schema and output schema, making the description sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 each parameter (e.g., certificate_id required for delete, ssl_certificate required for create). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 uses specific verb+resource phrasing: 'Add or remove an additional SNI SSL certificate on an HAProxy frontend.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by scoping to additional SNI certificates and explicitly contrasts with update_haproxy_frontend for default certificates.

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 explicitly directs users to update_haproxy_frontend's ssloffloadcert parameter when the intended operation is setting the default certificate, rather than an additional one. This provides clear alternative guidance and contextual usage.

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