pve_node_cert_delete

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses mutation behavior, risk level, recoverability, effects of restart and confirm, and the HTTP endpoint. Includes honest note about verification status.

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?

Very concise: 4 lines with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose: mutation label, risk, parameter behavior, endpoint. No fluff.

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?

Covers all essential aspects: what it does, risk, how to use params, and the HTTP endpoint. Output schema exists but not needed for this simple mutation. The 'Smoke-confirm' note adds valuable honesty. Complete for a delete 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 coverage is only 25% (only proximo_target described). Description compensates by explaining confirm and restart parameters clearly. Node parameter is self-explanatory from URL path but not elaborated. Overall adds meaningful semantics beyond raw 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?

Description clearly states 'delete the custom TLS certificate from a PVE node' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_node_cert_upload (upload) and pve_node_certificates (list).

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?

Implicitly provides context via 'RISK_MEDIUM' and explains boolean parameters, but lacks explicit 'when-to-use' vs alternatives or when-not-to-use. Could mention scenario where deleting before uploading a new certificate is appropriate.

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