gatekeeper_remove_certificate

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering the mutation and irreversibility aspects. The description adds the domain scope but does not disclose additional behaviors such as whether the private key is also removed, what happens if the certificate is in use, or any error conditions. Given the annotation coverage, the description adds modest context beyond the structured fields.

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 with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and it fits the tool's simplicity. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is minimal but arguably sufficient for a straightforward removal operation. However, it lacks details like whether the certificate must exist, side effects on dependent services, or error scenarios. Given the absence of an output schema, a slightly richer description would improve completeness, but the current level is acceptable for a simple tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the 'domain' parameter. It only restates that the certificate is for a domain, which mirrors the parameter name and adds no detail about expected format (e.g., FQDN, with or without protocol), validation rules, or examples. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly format the input.

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 verb 'Remove' and the resource 'SSL certificate for a domain'. It is specific and distinguishes from related tools like gatekeeper_install_certificate and gatekeeper_check_certificate_status. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling gatekeeper_nginx_remove, though that likely refers to nginx config rather than certificates. Overall, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites mentioned (e.g., verifying the certificate exists before removal). The agent is left to infer that removal is the inverse of installation. There is no mention of when not to use it or what conditions must hold.

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