Delete node certificate

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true). The description adds valuable context on the behavioral impact (reverting to self-signed) and the required confirmation process, going beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, risk, and usage instruction. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the lack of an output schema and the presence of 5 parameters including 'restart', the description omits explanation of the restart behavior and other consequences. It covers the essential risk and confirmation need but leaves some operational gaps.

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 60%, which is moderate. The description itself adds no parameter-level details, leaving the schema to cover them. The baseline for this coverage is 3, as the description does not compensate further.

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 action ('Delete a custom certificate from a node') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling delete tools. It immediately communicates the high risk and the consequence of reverting to self-signed.

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 explicitly warns of high risk, specifies the consequence ('reverts to self-signed'), and instructs to ask for confirmation before invoking. This provides clear guidance on when to use and the necessity of user approval, though it does not mention alternative actions like updating the certificate.

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