ssl_upload_cert_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it does meaningful work: 'force: Allow a certificate that fails validation,' 'dry_run: Validate only,' and 'confirm: Required unless dry_run' disclose validation, safe execution, and confirmation behavior. 'impersonate: Owning user' hints at authorization context. It does not fully explore irreversibility or service impact, but it discloses the most safety-relevant behaviors.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args list. Every line adds information about a parameter or behavior, with no filler or redundant explanation.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: what the operation does, all parameters, validation behavior, dry-run mode, and confirmation requirement. It stops short of explaining post-replacement effects or error conditions, but the output schema and the existing flag descriptions make the definition sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 for the schema's silence. It does so by documenting all nine parameters, including valuable semantics for 'chain' as optional intermediate PEM list, 'force' as allowing failed validation, and 'dry_run' as validate-only. A few entries like 'domain: Domain' are nearly tautological, but the overall parameter guidance is solid.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Replace a domain certificate with uploaded PEM files.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as ssl_get_cert_files (reading), ssl_delete_domain_cert (deleting), and ssl_reissue_domain (ACME reissuance), and from ssl_server_upload_files, which targets server certs rather than domain certs.

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 provides a clear context for use: replacing an existing domain certificate with PEM data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose statement is specific enough that an agent can understand when this tool applies versus certificate retrieval, deletion, or ACME reissuance.

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