request_certificate

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that provisioning is async and defaults to Let's Encrypt, but does not detail what destructive behavior entails (e.g., replacing existing certificates) or other behavioral traits like failure scenarios or auth requirements.

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 two front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It conveys the primary purpose and an important async note efficiently.

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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions checking list_certificates for status, but does not describe the return value of the request itself (e.g., success message, task ID). The tool's destructive nature is not elaborated, leaving gaps for agents.

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 all parameters. The description adds that the certificate type defaults to 'letsencrypt', but this is already implied by the schema's default (not explicitly stated). No additional parameter meaning beyond schema.

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 tool requests an SSL certificate for a site, with a default to Let's Encrypt. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from siblings like list_certificates and delete_certificate.

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 indicates that provisioning is async and suggests using list_certificates to check status, providing clear context for when to use this tool and what to do after. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention prerequisites.

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