proxy_certificates

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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: the list action is safe while request performs an external Let's Encrypt issuance, issuance is gated behind approval or an ALLOW_WRITES flag, and it will fail if the domains are not publicly reachable. That is real operational context beyond the hints. It does not mention the dry_run escape hatch, which is the one notable omission for a destructive action.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource, then the safe action, then the risky action with its prerequisites. Nothing is padded, though the telegraphic fragments ('SSL certificates.', 'list is read-only.') cost a little readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the destructive/approval model is covered. What remains missing is how to scope a request (domain_names) and how to preview it (dry_run), which leaves an agent with a destructive tool under-documented at the call site.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it largely does not. It explains the meaning of only one parameter value pair (action=list vs action=request); domain_names, limit, offset, and especially dry_run — the only way to preview a destructive issuance — get no mention at all.

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 opening fragment 'SSL certificates' names the resource, and the two following sentences name the two modes of operation (list vs request), so the agent can tell this tool apart from proxy_hosts or dns_zones. It stops short of a single clean verb+resource statement, but the scope 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?

It gives clear selection conditions: use list for a read-only view, use request to obtain a new Let's Encrypt certificate. It also states prerequisites (approval or ALLOW_WRITES, and DNS must resolve to reachable domains), which is exactly the context an agent needs before choosing request. It does not name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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