combell_linux_hostings_set_http2

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with those. It adds the SSL prerequisite as useful behavioral context, but it does not explain what happens if SSL is not enabled, whether the change is immediate, or what response to expect.

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?

Two brief sentences with no filler. The action is stated firstamental, and the key prerequisite follows. Every word earns its place.

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 is adequate for a simple, idempotent setter with no output schema, and it includes an important functional constraint. Still, it lacks any mention of async/provisioning behavior or the meaning of domain_name vs site_name, so an agent may need extra inference to call it correctly on the first try.

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 correctly implies that `enabled` controls the feature, but it does not explain `domain_name` or `site_name`, their relationship, or expected formats. This leaves two of three required parameters semantically under-specified.

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 ('enable or disable') and resource ('HTTP/2 for a website on a Linux hosting'), so the tool's core action is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling configuration tools like set_gzip or set_php_version, but the HTTP/2 target is unambiguous.

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 directly relevant prerequisite: SSL must be enabled for HTTP/2 to work. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving usage guidance mostly implied.

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