delete_certificate_revoke_invalidate

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: permanent removal with no undo, server-side auth injection, throttling and retry policy, expected success status codes, and detailed non-2xx error semantics. This goes well beyond what annotations provide and does not contradict them.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with a destructive warning and clear verb. Each section—behavior, returns, use-when, related tools—earns its place, and there is no redundant 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully covers return values, error handling, prerequisites, safety confirmation, rate limiting, retries, and alternatives. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly and safely.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter adequately. The description adds only a passing reference to 'provided certificate id,' which is minimally helpful but not necessary given the schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('deletes'), a specific resource ('certificate'), and the HTTP endpoint, and clarifies that it revokes/invalidates by permanently deleting. It also distinguishes itself from related certificate tools, so an agent can tell it apart from update_certificate_reissue and get_certificates without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' guidance is provided: only after the user confirms removal. It also names the alternatives for less destructive actions ('matching 🟡 update or unenroll tool') and lists related certificate tools, giving clear routing decisions.

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