openwisp_revoke_cert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states it is an HTTP POST but not that revocation is typically irreversible, whether it invalidates VPN/device access, or what permissions are required — significant gaps for a destructive mutation.

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?

Front-loaded verb+resource followed by a compact category tag and endpoint; no filler sentences. Slightly more information would be needed before it could be called ideal.

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 one-parameter but irreversible lifecycle mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the consequences of revocation, permission requirements, and return behavior. It is under-specified for the risk profile.

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 the sole parameter 'id' is documented in the schema as 'Certificate UUID or ID'. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Revoke a certificate', with the HTTP endpoint for confirmation. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like openwisp_delete_cert or openwisp_renew_cert, so an agent can't tell from the description alone which lifecycle operation applies.

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?

No guidance about when to revoke versus delete or renew, no prerequisites, and no mention of when-not-to-use. The agent is left to infer the whole decision from the tool name.

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