gatekeeper_install_certificate

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the mutating nature is conveyed. The description adds useful workflow context (prerequisite nginx enable and completion of deployment), but does not disclose further behavioral details such as external certbot calls, rate limits, or post-install reloads, so it only partially surpasses the annotation baseline.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then bolded DEPLOYMENT ORDER and PREREQUISITE callouts, then a closing note. Every sentence adds either scope or workflow context, with no filler.

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 2-param certificate installation tool, the description provides the essential orchestration context: when to run it (last), what must be pre-enabled, and what is required. There is no output schema, and the description omits return-value or failure-mode details, but the deployment workflow context is strong enough to guide a correct call.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must define the parameters, but it only says 'Requires domain and email,' restating the property names without explaining what the email is used for (e.g., certbot registration) or expected formats. An agent can infer that domain is the certificate target, but the parameters remain underspecified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Install an SSL certificate for a domain using certbot.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling certificate tools (list/remove/check status) by stating it is the final deployment step that 'completes the deployment.'

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 labels the deployment order: 'step 4 of 4 — do this last,' and names the prerequisite tool (gatekeeper_nginx_enable first). This tells the agent both when to invoke it and what must happen before, giving clear usage context relative to sibling nginx/gatekeeper tools.

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