revoke_cert

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

Although destructiveHint=true already flags mutation, the description adds substantial behavioral specifics: immediate browser-wide distrust, effective irreversibility, the confirm:true requirement, and the fact that cert files are left on disk. This goes well beyond the annotation and prepares the agent for real consequences.

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 tightly packed sentences: purpose and trigger, consequence and safety requirement, and post-condition with follow-up. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and annotations. The description adds the missing real-world behavior, irreversibility, and next-step guidance, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and already explains both parameters: domain as a certbot cert name and confirm as a guard with false default. The description reinforces the confirm requirement but does not add meaning beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Revoke') and resource ('a certificate with Let's Encrypt'), then clarifies its immediate consequence. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_cert by noting the files remain on disk, and from issue/renew by its destructive nature.

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 gives a concrete trigger ('after a key compromise'), warns that it is destructive and irreversible, and directs the user to follow with delete_cert for file removal. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it, but the destructive warning and follow-up relationship provide solid usage context.

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