pve_acme_cert_order

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

Discloses mutation, dry-run default, async (returns UPID), successful challenge installs cert and reloads pveproxy, failed challenge leaves existing cert untouched (cannot lock out), force=overwrite existing custom cert. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden and does so comprehensively.

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?

Description is information-dense but well-structured, using bold for key terms and clear phrasing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly verbose in some comparisons, but overall 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 complexity (no annotations, 4 params, 25% schema coverage), the description covers most critical aspects: async behavior, safety, confirmation, alternatives. Output schema exists so return values are handled. Missing explicit prerequisites (e.g., ACME domains configured), but still strong.

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 only 25% (only proximo_target described). Description adds meaning for force ('overwrite an existing custom cert') and confirm ('confirm=True to execute'), but does not explain 'node' or 'proximo_target' explicitly (proximo_target has schema description). Partially compensates for low coverage, but could be more thorough.

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 orders a new ACME TLS certificate for the node's configured ACME domains. It uses a specific verb ('order') and resource ('ACME certificate'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like pve_acme_cert_renew, pve_acme_cert_revoke, pve_node_cert_upload by noting its dry-run default, async nature, and lower risk compared to pve_node_cert_upload.

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 explicit context: dry-run by default, confirm=True to execute, and a specific alternative (pve_node_cert_delete to revert to self-signed). Also compares risk level with pve_node_cert_upload. Could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use (e.g., if ACME domains not configured).

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