Relax or restore TLS certificate checking

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by naming exactly which checks are disabled (pinning, OCSP, stapling/must-staple), disclosing the reversibility constraint (pre-relax values live only in this server process, restore fails after a restart rather than guessing), and noting that some TLS changes apply only to new connections. readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true are consistent with this.

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?

Front-loads the SECURITY SENSITIVE warning and then proceeds in a logical order: what changes, how to reverse, caveats. Sentences are dense but each carries information; the restore-precision sentence is long but not redundant.

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 single-boolean security toggle with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers what is mutated, reversibility, failure behavior after a server restart, and when effects take hold. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the boolean is already documented, but the description adds real meaning: relax:true disables the checks and is unsafe, and relax:false performs a precise restore that clears pre-existing-empty prefs back to Firefox defaults instead of writing a guessed value. That extra semantics is genuinely useful beyond the schema.

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?

States a precise verb set (switches/relax/restore) and a specific resource (certificate-checking preferences: pinning, OCSP, OCSP stapling/must-staple), so the agent knows exactly what state changes. It is clearly distinguishable from pref-level siblings like browser_set_pref and from override management like browser_certificate_manage.

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?

Gives a clear usage context — making a self-signed or internally issued test certificate usable — and both modes (relax:true to disable, relax:false to restore). It flags the unsafe direction explicitly, but never names an alternative (e.g. certificate overrides) or states when not to use it, so routing is inferred rather than spelled out.

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