pbs_node_cert_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It explicitly labels the tool as 'MUTATION (MEDIUM)', describes dry-run behavior, notes that PBS's restart param is ignored, specifies the confirm parameter's effect, states the return format, and indicates recoverability. This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity.

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 moderately long (5 sentences) but each sentence serves a purpose: action, default behavior, ignored param, confirm execution, recovery, config. It is front-loaded with the primary action. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.

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 (mutation, dry-run, recoverability) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, default behavior, how to execute, recovery path, and prerequisite config. No gaps remain for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds redundancy but also extra context like 'Default dry-run' and 'confirm=True executes deletion'. This adds some value but does not significantly surpass what the schema already provides for parameter understanding.

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 'delete the custom TLS certificate on a PBS node; PBS regenerates a self-signed one' and distinguishes from sibling pbs_node_cert_upload by mentioning recoverability via re-uploading. The verb 'delete' and resource 'custom TLS certificate' are specific and clear.

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 dry-run default behavior, the confirm parameter to execute, and recoverability via pbs_node_cert_upload. It also notes the PROXIMO_PBS_* config requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. other certificate-related tools like pbs_acme_* or pve_node_cert_delete, limiting guidance on alternatives.

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