certificate_create_letsencrypt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the async nature (returns immediately with status CREATING), prerequisites (public DNS for HTTP-01), and that it is a write operation. It would benefit from mentioning rate limits or side effects of repeated calls, but the provided context is strong.

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 concise with three clear sentences: action and async note, requirements, and write operation note. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds essential information.

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 (async, 8 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the async nature, prerequisites, and write aspect. It does not detail return values beyond 'CREATING' but references polling queue_active. Minor gaps exist (e.g., alternative_names behavior), but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 75%, with 6 of 8 parameters documented. The description adds value by emphasizing the confirm parameter requirement and the async polling behavior, but it does not provide additional meaning for most parameters beyond what the schema already includes.

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 it issues a Let's Encrypt SSL certificate for an existing site. It uses a specific verb ('Issue') and resource ('SSL certificate'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like certificates_list (list) and site_ssl_update (update).

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 for when to use the tool (issuing a new certificate) and explicit requirements (site must be publicly accessible with correct DNS). It also indicates it's a write operation requiring confirm:true. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives beyond the async hint.

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