upload_cert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without detailing side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites an existing cert), authentication needs, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence of 18 words, efficiently stating the purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action, though it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) but is still clear.

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 6 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and high schema coverage, the description is minimal. It tells what the tool does but does not provide context about domain matching or deployment scenarios. It is adequate but not rich.

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 83%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema; it only summarizes the purpose.

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 'Upload' and resource 'custom TLS certificate', and distinguishes from sibling 'issue_cert' by stating 'instead of having Vercel issue one'.

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 when to use (upload own cert vs. Vercel-issued), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention prerequisites or alternatives besides the implied contrast with issue_cert.

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