ssl_reissue_domain_legacy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context such as the legacy API, wildcard DNS challenge requirement, and the need for confirmation. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., replacement of existing certificate), auth requirements beyond impersonate, or failure behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, front-loaded with the most important instruction ('Use ssl_reissue_domain first'), and followed by a tight args list. Every sentence and bullet adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 legacy fallback tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the key context: purpose, alternative, legacy scope, parameter meanings, and special requirements. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. Minor omissions like explicit error conditions or prerequisites keep it short of a 5.

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, and it does. It explains every parameter concisely, adds meaningful semantics (wildcard requires DNS challenge, entries default to domain and www, keysize options, impersonate owner, confirm required). This goes well beyond the schema, though domain itself is described minimally.

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 opening line identifies a specific action and resource: a fallback Let's Encrypt request through the legacy CMD_API_SSL path. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling ssl_reissue_domain by stating which one to use first, making the tool's role clear without requiring schema inspection.

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 gives direct usage guidance: 'Use ssl_reissue_domain first' and clarifies that this legacy variant exists only for panels predating /api/domain-tls. This names the alternative and the condition that selects between them, which is exactly what an agent needs.

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