delete_cert

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the safety baseline is covered. The description adds genuinely valuable context beyond that: the confirm:true gate, the critical ordering constraint (revoke must happen before delete), and the concrete consequence that nginx config referencing deleted files will fail to reload. This transforms a bare destructive flag into an actionable risk profile. No contradiction with annotations - destructiveHint matches 'Destructive', idempotentHint is consistent with deleting already-absent files being a harmless repeat, and openWorldHint=false matches a purely local operation.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded first, safety warnings follow in order of criticality: confirmation gate, revocation ordering, then downstream impact. Even the slight redundancy of 'Destructive' against destructiveHint is justified for a tool where a misfire is harmful. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a destructive tool, this is complete. The description covers purpose, confirmation requirement, the revoke-before-delete decision, and post-delete consequences. The output schema exists so return values need no description, and the strong annotations carry idempotency and destructiveness. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call this tool safely.

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 the schema already documents both domain ('certbot cert name') and confirm ('Must be true to actually delete; false (default) is a dry run'). The description restates the confirm requirement but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a certificate's files from certbot's local store.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling revoke_cert by explicitly stating deletion is not revocation, which is exactly the ambiguity this tool family needs resolved. An agent can distinguish delete_cert from revoke_cert without opening either schema.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: 'if it may be compromised, call revoke_cert before this' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also warns about the downstream failure mode (nginx reload failures) which implicitly tells the agent to confirm no config references the cert before deleting. Nothing is left to inference.

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