install_ssl_certificate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the installation overwrites an existing certificate, requires special permissions, or is reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action without wasting words.

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?

The tool is an SSL installation with no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide context. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, effects on existing certificates, or chain handling (cabundle). This is too minimal for an agent to fully understand the operation.

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 the schema fully documents each parameter (domain, cert, key, cabundle). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Install an SSL certificate for a domain' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_ssl_certificates, delete_ssl_certificate, and trigger_autossl.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having a certificate, domain existing) or when to use AutoSSL or generate_ssl_csr instead. This leaves the agent without enough context for correct selection.

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