ecp_ssl_update_self_signed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly warns that the operation 'Can break HTTPS for that domain if it fails partway,' disclosing a non-obvious risk. It could say more about success behavior or reversibility, but the warning is substantive and meaningful.

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 no filler. The action and target are stated immediately, and the risk warning earns its place as essential safety information. Nothing in the description is redundant.

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 simple two-parameter mutation, the description plus schema is minimally viable: 'domain' is clear, and 'confirm' is constrained by the schema to true. However, the description does not mention the confirmation parameter, alternative flows, or success/output behavior, so an agent is left to infer some important context. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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. It indirectly explains 'domain' by referencing a domain's nginx config, but it does not explain the 'confirm' parameter at all or why it must be true. An agent would understand the domain target but not the confirmation requirement from the description alone.

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 clearly states a specific action: generate and apply a self-signed certificate to a domain's nginx config. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecp_ssl_request_self_signed and ecp_ssl_apply_certificate by indicating it performs both generation and application in one operation.

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 the tool — when a self-signed certificate needs to be generated and applied to a domain — but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over ecp_ssl_request_self_signed, ecp_ssl_apply_certificate, or Let's Encrypt options. The breakage warning is risk information, not usage routing, so no explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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