ecp_ssl_request_self_signed

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

With no annotations provided, the description has the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the cert is generated and not applied, but it does not mention whether existing certificates are overwritten, where the key/cert are stored, any expected response, authentication needs, or irreversible effects. This is insufficient for a side-effectful generation 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?

One clean sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately qualifying scope. The parenthetical is efficient and clarifies the main confusion instead of adding separate prose.

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?

This is a one-parameter tool, so the description can be shorter, but it still omits details that materially affect correct invocation: what happens to an existing self-signed cert, what the tool returns, and what next step to use. The 'does not apply' hint begins the workflow but does not complete it.

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 schema has zero description coverage and one required parameter, 'domain'. The description maps it by saying 'for a domain,' but it adds no format, validation, or constraint details beyond the parameter name. It is minimally sufficient but leaves the agent with basic questions about accepted domain forms.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and a concrete resource ('a new self-signed certificate for a domain'), and immediately distinguishes itself from the let's-encrypt, update, and apply siblings by noting it does not apply to nginx. An agent can tell this tool apart without inspecting other schemas.

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 when to use this tool (when you need a new self-signed certificate) and clearly notes a limitation (does not apply it to nginx). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for the apply step, renewal/update, or let's encrypt decisions, leaving the routing to the agent's inference.

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