Upload custom certificate (metadata only)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions the required follow-up upload but omits details on auth requirements, side effects, or response behavior, which are critical for safe usage.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the main action and indicating the required follow-up. No unnecessary words.

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 2 required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter usage, return values, or the overall process beyond the upload step.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'nice_name' or 'domain_names'. It fails to explain their purpose or expected values, leaving the schema to carry all semantic weight.

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 the tool creates a custom certificate record, distinguishing it from sibling tools like npm_create_certificate_letsencrypt. It specifies the action ('create') and the resource ('custom certificate record'), with a clear purpose.

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 provides explicit guidance that file upload must follow via npm_upload_certificate, indicating a two-step workflow. While it doesn't list when not to use this tool, it gives clear contextual usage for custom certificates.

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