infomaniak_request_certificate

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing the two-phase commit pattern and the return of an operation_uuid for async tracking. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description is consistent with these. It does not cover rate limits or auth requirements, but the two-phase commit disclosure is valuable.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and efficiently packs in the two-phase commit, supported types, required parameters, and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, two-phase commit, three types) and the presence of a rich input schema and output schema, the description adequately covers the workflow and key decision points. It mentions the return value and polling mechanism, which is essential. It does not enumerate every parameter, but that is appropriately delegated to the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does summarize the three certificate types and their required fields, but this information is already fully present in the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., type enum, certificate_id, certificate, private_key). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Request a new SSL certificate (or re-issue / renew an existing one) for a site on a web hosting.' It uses a specific verb ('request') with a clear resource (SSL certificate) and scope (site on hosting). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like infomaniak_get_certificate by mentioning the workflow of polling that tool for progress, and from deletion tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (new, re-issue, renew) and explicitly names infomaniak_get_certificate for tracking progress, which serves as an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for certificate deletion or listing), though sibling tools are available. The guidance is strong but could be more comprehensive.

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