ecp_nginx_set_conf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly identifies the operation as an overwrite and warns that malformed content can break the site, covering the most important destructive risk. It does not mention rollback, nginx reload behavior, or permission requirements, but the core danger is clearly disclosed.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The action is front-loaded, and the warning is directly relevant to safe invocation, earning its place in the description.

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 description is adequate for a simple overwrite operation but leaves notable gaps. It does not explain the confirm parameter, explicitly state that the existing config is fully replaced, or mention using ecp_nginx_get_conf to verify the current state first. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, a bit more operational detail would improve completeness.

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 must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It loosely maps 'nginx config' to file_content and 'domain' to domain_name, but it never explains the required confirm parameter, whose purpose is only inferable from the schema's const:true constraint.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Overwrite') and a precise resource ('the raw nginx config for a domain'), making it immediately clear what the tool does. It is easily distinguishable from the read-oriented sibling ecp_nginx_get_conf and ecp_nginx_list_domains.

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 establishes a clear use context: replacing a domain's nginx configuration. It also gives a practical directive to verify the config before writing, which implies caution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to ecp_nginx_get_conf as the way to inspect the current configuration first.

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