pbs_acme_plugin_create

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It reveals the tool is a mutation, dry-run by default, additive, synchronous, and describes the HTTP endpoint, return format, and config requirement. It also notes the data field is base64-encoded and redacted from plans but sent on confirm.

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 4 sentences, front-loaded with the action and mutation type. Every sentence adds value: dry-run behavior, additive nature, key parameter example, removal reference, confirm execution details, and config requirement. No redundancy.

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 8 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description covers core behavioral aspects: dry-run vs execute, return value, endpoint, and config needs. It does not detail all optional parameters but relies on schema descriptions. With output schema present, this is sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., dns_api as DNS provider name, plugin_id usage in cert ordering) but does not significantly go beyond what the schema already provides. No new parameter semantics beyond schema.

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 explicitly states 'create an ACME DNS challenge plugin' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting that removal uses pbs_acme_plugin_delete, and it is additive (does not affect existing plugins).

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?

Provides clear context: use this to create a plugin for DNS-01 challenges, references plugin_id when ordering a cert, and contrasts with pbs_acme_plugin_delete for removal. It does not explicitly compare with pbs_acme_plugin_update but gives sufficient guidance for typical usage.

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