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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds a lot beyond that: reversibility, single-setting scope, a real TLS handshake pre-check with distinct rejection reasons, the force bypass, and post-write readback semantics with a fallback message when readback fails. On its own merits this is rich (5-level), but the safety profile is already carried by annotations, so the marginal value is good rather than exceptional.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and remediation intent, and every clause carries real operational information (check conditions, rejection reasons, force, readback). It is a dense single block rather than a structured list, which slightly hurts scanability, but there is little waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what the response reports, including the subtle readback-failure case where the returned state is desired rather than measured. For a mutation tool with a non-trivial pre-check, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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% and all three parameters (domain, enabled, force) are fully documented in the schema, including force's warning about certificate warnings for visitors. The description adds only marginal nuance about force's typical timing, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (aktiviert/deaktiviert) and resource (die automatische HTTP→HTTPS-Weiterleitung für eine Domain) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the diagnostic siblings by noting it fixes the 'kein HTTPS-Redirect' finding from diagnose_website/get_website_report rather than only displaying it.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (fix the reported HTTPS-redirect finding), prerequisites (use create_ssl_certificate first when no valid cert), an escape hatch (force=true deliberately bypasses the check, e.g. when the cert is issued right afterwards), and an exclusion (disabling is never checked).

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