hcloud_create_certificate

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), so the description's job is added context — and it delivers: managed certs are renewed automatically with email alerts, issuance is asynchronous and trackable via the response `action`, and `action` is always null for uploaded. It does not discuss failure modes or what happens if issuance fails, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 with the core action, then mode-specific detail in a logical order. Slight waste in the duplicated 'Create a Certificate / Creates a new Certificate' opener, but the remaining sentences each carry real 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the shape of the response's `action` field for both modes. Combined with mode requirements and renewal semantics, an agent has everything needed to construct a valid call and interpret the result.

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?

Goes beyond the schema's per-field 'Required for type X' notes by explaining the trade-off between the two types and the consequences of each (PEM upload + self-managed renewal vs Let's Encrypt issuance restricted to Hetzner DNS domains). It adds little for `name`, `labels`, and `wait`, which the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a Certificate') and immediately splits the operation into its two distinct modes, uploaded vs managed, so an agent understands not just what it creates but which variant it is creating. The resource name cleanly separates it from the many get_/list_/update_/delete_ certificate siblings.

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?

Explicitly contrasts the two modes and the conditions selecting each: uploaded requires you to monitor expiration and renew yourself, managed requires domains hosted on Hetzner DNS. That is strong when-to-use guidance for the mode decision, though it gives no guidance on when to call this versus hcloud_update_certificate or hcloud_certificate_retry_action.

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