ssl_reissue_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this calls POST /api/domain-tls/{domain}/provision-certs, that ACME must be enabled, that dry_run only validates and does not hit the CA, and that confirm is required unless dry_run is true. It does not cover every side effect, but the key operational behaviors are clear.

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 compact and well structured: purpose first, then endpoint, prerequisites, alternatives, and a clean arg list. No sentence is wasted, and the critical caveats are front-loaded.

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 description covers the main invocation concerns: prerequisite check, sibling routing, dry-run behavior, and the confirm requirement. The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The only real gap is the undocumented optional parameters reason and idempotency_key, which keeps this from being fully complete.

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 explains domain, impersonate, dry_run, and confirm's conditional requirement, but it omits reason and idempotency_key entirely. The most important parameters are covered, but two optional ones remain semantically opaque.

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 and resource: 'Reissue / provision the ... certificate for a domain.' It also brands itself as the 'primary renew/reissue SSL action,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssl_reissue_server and ssl_reissue_domain_legacy. The endpoint reference adds further precision.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use alternatives: use ssl_get_domain_acme_config first when ACME status is uncertain, and use ssl_reissue_server for hostname/server certs. This is concrete, actionable routing guidance rather than vague context.

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