cdn_create_cdn_ssl_certificate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation (upload), the accepted formats (PEM), and the smart identifier resolution behavior. However, it doesn't disclose whether this overwrites an existing certificate, whether the certificate is validated before upload, or any rate limits or auth requirements. The 'Returns' section is minimal.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is clearly structured and each parameter gets a line. The 'Smart identifier resolution' note is useful and placed early. Minor redundancy: 'Returns: SSL certificate details' is vague and adds little, but overall it's efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description covers the main inputs and the identifier flexibility. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it doesn't mention whether the upload replaces an existing certificate, whether the zone must already exist, or what happens if the certificate is invalid. These are meaningful gaps for an agent deciding to call this 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. It does: it explains that zone_identifier accepts origin domain, CDN domain, or UUID, and it specifies PEM format for certificate and private_key, and notes certificate_chain is optional. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types. It loses a point because it doesn't explain what 'certificate chain' means or how the chain should be ordered.

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 and resource: 'Upload SSL certificate for a CDN zone.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like cdn_get_cdn_ssl_certificate and cdn_delete_cdn_ssl_certificate. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it loses a point for not naming the alternative.

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 implies usage context: it's for uploading an SSL certificate to a CDN zone, and the 'Smart identifier resolution' note explains how to identify the zone. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cdn_get_cdn_ssl_certificate or cdn_delete_cdn_ssl_certificate, nor does it mention prerequisites like having a zone already created.

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