renew_certificate

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a mutation but not destructive. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the word 'existing'—it doesn't mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., CA connectivity), whether certificates are regenerated, or if renewal is asynchronous. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 a single, succinct sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary padding or repetition.

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 simplicity of the operation (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is adequately complete for basic invocation. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema covers that. It could be improved by mentioning potential failure modes or prerequisites, but for a low-complexity tool, this is sufficient.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, with a helpful description explaining the certificate_id is an array index from search_certificates. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already does the heavy lifting. Baseline 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 clearly specifies the action ('renew') and resource ('existing certificate') along with the required input ('by ID'). It is distinct from sibling tools like create_certificate, update_certificate, and delete_certificate, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context is clear: use this when you have an existing certificate ID that needs renewal. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool name itself differentiates from renew_acme_certificate, and the description implies the intended scenario. A brief mention of when not to use it would have made it a 5.

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