pve_acme_cert_renew

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses mutation, async behavior (returns UPID), dry-run default, CA-validation, installation on success only, and the effect on pveproxy. This is comprehensive and accurate.

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, packing essential information into few sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds context. Some minor redundancy ('MUTATION:' and 'async — returns a UPID' are clear) 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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, safety, async behavior, parameters, and side effects. It is complete for an ACME cert renewal tool with good annotations.

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 only 25% (only proximo_target has a description). The description compensates by explaining the `force` and `confirm` parameters behaviorally, adding context not in the schema. However, it does not detail `node` or `proximo_target` beyond implicit mention.

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 'renew the node's existing ACME TLS certificate,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like pve_acme_cert_order and pve_acme_cert_revoke by focusing specifically on renewal of an existing certificate.

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 explicit context: dry-run by default, use confirm=True to execute, force to renew even if >30 days to expiry. It also notes safety ('a failure can't lock you out') and side effect (reloads pveproxy). While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, it gives clear when-to-use guidance.

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