npm_create_certificate

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and operational behavior. It only mentions the challenge type and provider selection, but does not explain that certificate issuance involves external ACME requests, potential waiting time, prerequisites like domain ownership, or that DNS-01 challenges are available for wildcards (as shown in the schema). This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded. Every word adds information.

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's complexity (dual modes, nested meta options, external ACME interaction, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It fails to mention support for DNS-01/wildcards, required agreement or email fields, or what a typical response looks like. An agent would need to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 description adds context for the provider parameter (letsencrypt for HTTP-01) and hints at the custom certificate upload path, but it does not elaborate on the meta object fields (dns_challenge, letsencrypt_email, propagation_seconds, etc.) or the domain_names format beyond what the schema already provides. With schema coverage around 50%, the description only partially compensates.

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's purpose: requesting a new Let's Encrypt certificate via HTTP-01 challenge or uploading a custom certificate. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like renew_certificate, list_certificates, and delete_certificate by focusing on the creation action.

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 to use provider "letsencrypt" for standard HTTP challenge runs, which indicates when to choose that provider. However, it does not explicitly state when to use a custom certificate or when to prefer the renew_certificate sibling, so it lacks full when/when-not coverage.

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