register_acme_account_key

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

Annotations already cover safety profile (write, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds minimal context: 'sends the account key to the ACME server and completes registration'. This clarifies the mechanism but does not disclose additional behaviors such as network dependencies, failure conditions, or external service side effects.

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 first sentence clearly stating the purpose. The second sentence adds some redundancy ('sends... and completes registration') but still provides a slight mechanistic clarification. Overall, it is efficient with no unnecessary fluff.

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 simple tool with one well-schema'd parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It lacks explicit context about the surrounding ACME workflow (such as needing a created key first), but the purpose and parameter are clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema fully describes the single parameter 'id' with a clear description: 'Account key ID to register (from search_acme_account_keys)'. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. No additional parameter semantics are provided in the tool description.

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 specific action: 'Register an ACME account key with the ACME server (Let's Encrypt)'. It uses a precise verb ('register') and resource ('ACME account key'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_acme_account_key' by specifying the target ('ACME server') and the completing-registration action.

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?

Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit. The description indicates registration with the ACME server but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., key must already exist). The parameter description hints that the ID comes from 'search_acme_account_keys', providing some indirect context.

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