pbs_acme_cert_renew

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 that the tool is a mutation, is dry-run by default, only installs on success (no lockout), completes asynchronously without a UPID to poll, and the return format. It also notes that PBS has no ACME cert revoke. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 relatively concise but includes some extra notes (e.g., rating comparison). It front-loads the purpose and key behaviors. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly shorter without losing meaning. Structure is logical.

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 (4 parameters, async behavior, mutation), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, dry-run, execution, force, return format, async nature, and configuration requirements. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly states what the API returns. The description is complete for an agent to use the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the force and confirm behaviors ('force=renew even if not yet within the renewal lead time', 'confirm=True executes ...'). However, for the node and proximo_target parameters, the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so a score of 4 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 starts with 'MUTATION: renew the existing ACME TLS certificate for a PBS node.', clearly stating the verb (renew) and resource (ACME TLS certificate). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pbs_acme_cert_order (order new certificate) and notes PBS has no ACME cert revoke, providing clear differentiation.

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 dry-run default, the confirm parameter for execution, and the force parameter for early renewal. It mentions the async nature and lack of polling. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus pbs_acme_cert_order (e.g., only for existing certificates). The context is clear but could include more explicit exclusions.

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