ecp_ssl_update_lets_encrypt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a critical risk: it can break HTTPS for the domain if it fails partway. However, it omits other relevant consequences such as replacing an existing certificate, nginx reload behavior, reversibility, or prerequisites.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the risk warning follows immediately. Every word contributes useful information.

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 mutating operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, this description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on what 'confirm' means, prerequisites like DNS or domain existence, what success or failure returns, and recovery options after a partial failure.

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 needed to clarify parameter semantics. It implicitly covers 'domain' by mentioning 'a domain's nginx config', but 'confirm' is completely unexplained. Since the confirm parameter is required and constrained to true, its purpose as an acknowledgment or consent should have been stated.

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 concrete action: issue and apply a Let's Encrypt certificate to a domain's nginx config. It identifies the resource and certificate type, which helps distinguish it from self-signed SSL tools. However, it doesn't explicitly mention 'update' or 'renew', leaving some overlap with ecp_ssl_request_lets_encrypt and ecp_ssl_apply_certificate.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool over ecp_ssl_request_lets_encrypt, ecp_ssl_apply_certificate, or ecp_ssl_update_self_signed. The risk warning is cautionary but not a selection criterion. This is essentially no usage guidance.

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