delete_certificate_revoke_invalidate

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it's a destructive operation. The description adds context ('Revoke / Invalidate') and the HTTP endpoint, but does not elaborate on side effects, reversibility, or authorization requirements. It adds moderate value beyond 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 brief but contains some redundancy (e.g., the first line's emoji and HTTP method are already implied by annotations and schema). It could be streamlined by removing the first line, which adds no unique value. The core content is clear but slightly verbose.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits details about irreversibility, impacts on dependent resources, or confirmation steps. Given the tool's simple nature, the description is complete enough for basic use but lacks depth.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'id', which is described as 'Certificate Id'. The description merely restates this ('provided certificate id'). No additional semantic information or formatting hints are provided beyond what the schema already offers.

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 certificate') and the resource ('certificate specified by the provided certificate id'). The HTTP method and endpoint are also provided, making the purpose unambiguous. The tool is well-distinguished from siblings by the specific resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_certificate_reissue). No context on prerequisites, scenarios, or limitations. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool's name and basic description.

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