pve_node_cert_delete

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a mutation, reverts to self-signed certificate, is recoverable, supports dry-run (returns PLAN) and confirm (executes), and the restart parameter reloads pveproxy. The output structure is also described. This covers all key behavioral aspects.

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 (3 sentences/segments) and well-structured: it starts with purpose, then risk, then recovery, then parameter behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and clearly distinguishes modes.

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 has 4 optional parameters, output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers the behavior (including dry-run vs. confirm), risk, recovery path, and prerequisite/sequencing (view certs first, re-upload after). It also explains the output format for both modes. This is complete for safe and correct usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining that confirm=False returns a dry-run PLAN and that restart=True reloads pveproxy immediately. This enhances understanding beyond the schema defaults and descriptions, enabling the agent to use parameters more effectively.

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 that the tool deletes the custom TLS certificate from a PVE node, labels it as a MUTATION, and distinguishes it from siblings pve_node_cert_upload and pve_node_certificates by referencing them for recovery and viewing. The verb 'delete' combined with the resource 'custom TLS certificate from a PVE node' is specific.

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 when to use the tool (to delete a custom TLS cert and revert to self-signed), mentions recoverability via pve_node_cert_upload, and describes the dry-run vs. confirm execution model. It implicitly advises against deleting if the cert is needed and provides context on risk level (RISK_MEDIUM). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it beyond the implied preservation.

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