Upload a certificate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that it accepts sensitive private-key material and returns a hash, but says nothing about overwrite behavior (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or validation failures.

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 short sentences with zero padding, and the storage action is front-loaded ahead of the return-value contract. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the return value (the hash) and its purpose. For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage this is nearly sufficient; only error/overwrite behavior is unaddressed.

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 100% — both 'cert' and 'key' are documented in the schema with PEM formatting requirements. The description only restates the two inputs at a high level, adding no syntax, encoding, or ordering detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Store a PEM certificate and private key in the panel') and names the concrete artifact produced (the hash consumed by ssl_deploy). This clearly separates it from siblings like ssl_list, ssl_deploy, and ssl_disable, which operate on already-stored certificates.

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?

It establishes the workflow context by saying the returned hash is used by ssl_deploy, which tells the agent this is the prerequisite step for deployment. However, it never states when NOT to use it (e.g., to replace an existing certificate) or whether an alternative sibling exists for that case.

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