Update SSL/HTTPS settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by warning that HSTS changes can be hard to reverse until max-age expires, though it omits auth requirements, exact patch semantics, and whether omitted fields are preserved.

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 [WRITE] and the operation, then endpoint, documented fields, and one high-value caution. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

For a 9-parameter write tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the endpoint and field list plus an HSTS reversal warning. It still lacks parameter semantics, permission requirements, and response/return behavior, leaving important context gaps.

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 0%, so the description should explain parameter meaning. It only lists the eight documented field names, which are already visible as schema properties, and provides no format, allowed values, units, or defaults for tls_version, hsts_max_age, or the boolean flags.

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 and resource: 'Patch SSL settings' with the official PATCH endpoint and a [WRITE] tag. This clearly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling get_ssl_settings.

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 [WRITE] tag and PATCH endpoint imply this is the mutation counterpart to get_ssl_settings, but the description never explicitly says when to use it instead of alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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