Create Certificate

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about the two modes but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or potential duplicates. It does not contradict annotations.

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 a single sentence of 15 words, starting with the action verb. It is extremely concise and front-loaded, wasting no 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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, open-world hint) and rich schema coverage, the description adds value by clarifying the two creation modes and conditional requirements. It does not mention related operations (e.g., update, retry) but is fairly complete for its purpose.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'PEM data' and 'domain names' but these are already detailed in the schema parameters. No additional parameter-level meaning is provided.

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 that the tool creates a certificate, specifying two distinct types: uploaded (PEM data) and managed (domain names). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes between sibling tools like hetzner_get_certificate and hetzner_delete_certificate.

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 implies when to use the tool (to create a certificate of either type) but does not provide exclusions or alternatives. It could mention that for retrieving existing certificates, use get_certificate, or for deleting, use delete_certificate, but it does not.

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