cwp_autossl_install

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states 'Install' (a mutation) but omits permissions, whether existing certificates are overwritten, side effects, or what force actually does—critical context for a write operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though 'for a domain' is slightly redundant with the domain parameter.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse for a mutation tool. It does not tell the agent when to use force, what happens on renewal/existing cert, or what the tool returns, though the fully documented schema covers the inputs.

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%, with each parameter documented ('Domain name', 'Contact email for certificate', 'Force renewal if exists'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Install SSL certificate') and includes the target ('a domain'), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cwp_autossl_renew or cwp_autossl_delete, leaving the agent to infer install vs. renew from the name alone.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. There is no hint that cwp_autossl_renew should be used when a certificate already exists or that force affects existing certificates.

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