infomaniak_delete_certificate

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further by explaining the fallback to no HTTPS or default cert and the two-phase commit behavior. This adds context about what happens after deletion and the safety mechanism of a planning phase. It doesn't disclose every consequence (e.g., potential downtime) but provides useful transparency beyond the annotations.

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 primary action, and every word adds value. It explains the outcome, the two-phase commit, and the planning benefit without fluff. Structure is clear and focused.

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 destructive nature and two-phase flow, the description captures the essential context: what happens, how to preview, and that a new cert can be requested later. An output schema is present, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., hosting_id/site_id), but those are in the schema. Overall, it is complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters (100% coverage) with descriptions for site_id, hosting_id, and confirmation_token. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the two-phase flow involving confirmation_token. Since the schema already provides thorough explanations, a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Delete the SSL certificate of a site.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the fallback behavior ('will fall back to no HTTPS or Infomaniak's default cert') distinguishes it from certificate provisioning tools like infomaniak_request_certificate. The name and description together leave no ambiguity.

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 explains the two-phase commit process: 'The plan pulls the current certificate status so the caller can see what is about to be removed.' This tells the agent that a first call (without confirmation_token) generates a plan, and a second call executes. It also implies the alternative for re-adding a certificate ('until a new one is requested'), though it doesn't explicitly name infomaniak_request_certificate in the description. No exclusions are stated, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to use it.

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