trigger_autossl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states that it triggers a check/renewal but lacks detail on side effects, such as whether it forces renewal, if it's asynchronous, if it requires AutoSSL enabled, or if it could incur billing. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It precisely states the action and scope.

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 tool's simplicity, the description is minimal but leaves out important operational context like success/failure response, whether the operation is synchronous, or if it has prerequisites. For an agent to confidently invoke it, more behavioral context is needed. A 2 reflects this under-specification.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no semantic gap to fill. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description doesn't need to explain any parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'trigger' and resource 'AutoSSL check/renewal', making the tool's action unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes from sibling `get_autossl_status` which queries status rather than initiating an action.

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 usage context: to initiate an AutoSSL check/renewal. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like `get_autossl_status` or when not to use it, but the action verb provides enough context.

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