tls_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries all behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but does not disclose what happens if domain does not exist, whether it merges or overwrites, or any side effects (e.g., reload). Barely informative.

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?

One sentence, 12 words – very concise and front-loaded. However, given the tool's complexity, it is too terse, omitting critical information. Effective structure but insufficient content.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is a stub. It does not explain the many parameters, required input format (e.g., PEM vs path), behavior on existing vs missing domain, or any constraints. Highly incomplete for a 13-parameter mutation tool.

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% across 13 parameters. The description only hints at 'certificate, key, etc.', leaving 11 other parameters (ca_list, method, cipher_list, etc.) completely unexplained. Fails to add meaning beyond parameter names.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing TLS domain configuration', with parenthetical 'certificate, key, etc.' specifying scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tls_add (create) and tls_delete (remove).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tls_add vs tls_update vs tls_reload). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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