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

Adds rich behavioral detail beyond the annotations: reversibility, single-setting scope, real TLS handshake validation before enabling with specific rejection reasons, deliberate force bypass, no validation on disable, and read-back from Plesk with fallback messaging if read-back fails. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Although lengthy, the description is front-loaded with the core operation and every sentence carries unique operational detail (TLS validation, rejection cases, force bypass, read-back behavior). No filler, and the complexity justifies the size.

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 the mutation nature, lack of an output schema, and multi-step validation logic, the description covers all essential aspects: prerequisites, failure modes, bypass option, and response behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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%, so all three parameters (domain, enabled, force) are already documented in the schema. The description adds some nuance about force bypassing the TLS check, but it largely reiterates what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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 (enable/disable) and resource (automatic HTTP→HTTPS redirect for a domain), and names the finding it resolves. It references diagnose_website/get_website_report as the source of the finding and create_ssl_certificate as a prerequisite, clearly distinguishing itself from generic redirect siblings like redirect_domain.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (to fix a reported 'no HTTPS redirect' finding), prerequisites (a valid TLS certificate, otherwise use create_ssl_certificate first), rejection conditions for missing/expired/foreign certificates and failed handshakes, the force=true bypass, and that disabling requires no check. Alternatives and when-not conditions are clearly covered.

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