ecp_ssl_apply_certificate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses the key behavioral risk: 'Can break HTTPS for that domain if misapplied.' It does not detail return behavior or postconditions, but the most important destructive consequence is explicitly surfaced.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately follows with the critical risk warning, making it easy for an agent to absorb the essential information quickly.

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 small three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential facts: what the tool applies, to what target, and the danger of misuse. It could be more complete by naming sibling tools or clarifying prerequisites around certificate generation, but the core decision-relevant context is present.

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%, and the description does not meaningfully define the three parameters. It loosely ties 'certificate' to certificate_name and 'domain' to domain, but it never explains the certificate_name enum values or the role of the required confirm flag, which is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Apply an already-generated certificate to a domain's nginx config.' It also explicitly says 'without regenerating it,' which distinguishes this tool from SSL generation/renewal siblings like ecp_ssl_request_lets_encrypt and ecp_ssl_update_self_signed.

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 phrase 'already-generated certificate' establishes a clear precondition: use this only when a certificate already exists and does not need regeneration. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as the SSL request/update tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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