ssl_admin_reissue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety burden. It discloses that ACME is queued in the background via dataskq, that no impersonation occurs, and that confirm is required. It does not list failure modes or side effects on existing certificates, but the core behavioral traits are clearly conveyed.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, an implementation note, usage guidance, and an Args section. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary and mixes prose with formal argument documentation, which is acceptable given the complexity and the zero schema coverage.

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 tool has five parameters and no annotations, but the description covers the critical aspects: what the tool does, when to prefer it, the async behavior, and the meaning of the main parameters. Missing details about reason, idempotency_key, and explicit confirmation semantics are secondary. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's burden.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains domains as coming from ssl_admin_list with a max of 50, wildcard as dns-01 versus default http-01/per-host, and confirm as required. The reason and idempotency_key parameters are not explained, leaving a modest gap, but the most important semantics are covered.

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 the tool requests Let's Encrypt certificates for selected customer domains, names the underlying admin action, and explicitly contrasts itself with ssl_reissue_domain. This makes its purpose and scope immediately distinguishable from nearby SSL sibling tools.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Prefer this when an operator says reissue SSL for these clients') and names the more precise alternative for single domains on modern panels. It also warns about asynchronous queueing behavior, which is valuable for setting expectations.

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