Uninstall website SSL

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: revocation/deletion timing, the fact the domain won't be served with a platform cert until a new setup completes, custom certs being unaffected, and a detailed error-code map (422, 429, 403, 404). This aligns with idempotentHint (succeeds when no cert exists) and goes well beyond the structured metadata.

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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, and every sentence contributes meaningful information. The error-code paragraph is dense but each code adds value for an agent handling failure modes. Slightly heavy on the error enumeration, but no filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description must explain behavior and errors itself, which it does thoroughly. It covers the destructive effect, idempotency, the custom-cert exclusion, and all relevant error codes. For a two-parameter, destructive, idempotent operation, this is complete enough for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – both `domain` and `website_uid` have descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Removes') and precise resource ('the platform-issued Let's Encrypt certificate of the domain'), and clarifies the effect ('revoked and deleted before the response'). It also distinguishes from sibling install/reinstall/get-status tools by specifying it only handles platform certificates, not custom ones.

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 gives clear scope and context: it applies to platform-issued Let's Encrypt certificates, not uploaded custom ones, which helps an agent decide between this and install/reinstall siblings. It also covers the edge case 'Also succeeds when the domain has no platform certificate to remove.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when NOT to use this tool.

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