ncloud_pca_revoke_end_cert

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with the warning 'Destructive' and adds new behavioral context: 'irreversible' and 'certificate will no longer be trusted.' These details go beyond the annotation by explaining the permanence and consequence of the action, which is valuable for an agent. No contradiction with annotations (idempotentHint=true is not addressed but does not conflict).

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 one concise sentence with a leading warning icon and word 'Destructive'. It front-loads the critical safety information and conveys the action and consequence without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with strong annotations (destructive and idempotent) and a 100% schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, how it's done (by serial number), and key consequences. It does not cover return values, but there is no output schema to explain; it also omits prerequisite details like requiring an active CA, but these are not critical given the schema and annotations. Overall, it is adequately complete.

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 100%: both caTag and serialNo have clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description only mentions 'by its serial number', which reinforces serialNo but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high 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 clearly states the action: 'Revoke an end-entity certificate by its serial number.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling operations like issuing, signing, or listing certificates. The consequence 'the certificate will no longer be trusted' further clarifies the purpose.

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 when to use the tool (for revoking a certificate) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. It lacks guidance such as 'use list_end_certs to find the serial number first' or 'for revoking a CA, use pca_trim_ca instead.' The usage context is understandable but not fully defined.

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