issue_wildcard_cert

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

Annotations already mark openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior: it fails fast with guidance on missing credentials, defaults to staging, and explains why DNS-01 is required. It could be slightly stronger by stating whether temporary Route53 DNS records are created during validation.

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 dense sentences: first states the core operation and constraint, second covers prerequisites and failure behavior, third covers default and alternative. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with one required parameter, full param descriptions, an output schema, and an open-world annotation, the description covers the critical operational facts: wildcard scope, DNS-01 requirement, plugin/credential prerequisites, default staging, and the sibling alternative. Nothing essential is missing.

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 baseline applies; the description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema's `domain`, `staging`, and `email` descriptions already say. It does reinforce the wildcard scope and staging default, but does not compensate for anything missing.

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 action ('Request a wildcard certificate'), includes exact scope (`domain` and `*.domain`), and names the sibling to avoid (`issue_cert` for single non-wildcard domains). This makes it distinguishable from the related certificate tools without opening the 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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool (wildcard certs needing DNS-01) and when not to ('For a single non-wildcard domain, use issue_cert instead'). It also states the prerequisites (certbot-dns-route53 plugin, AWS credentials), which is actionable usage context.

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