arvan_update_ssl_settings

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

Annotations indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description confirms it's an update operation but does not add behavioral details beyond the parameter usage (e.g., propagation time, permissions). It neither contradicts nor significantly enhances the annotations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose and efficiently cover the key parameter options. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.

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 covers the core action and parameters, but lacks details about return values (no output schema), error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., domain must exist). For a simple update tool, it is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The description adds meaningful guidance to the parameters: it explains the ssl_type enum ('default', 'manual', 'off') and hints that 'settings' is a full object. This adds value beyond the schema, which only defines types and constraints. However, it does not detail the structure of the 'settings' object.

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 'HTTPS/SSL settings for a domain', effectively defining the tool's purpose. It also briefly enumerates the parameters and their values, making it distinct from sibling tools like `arvan_get_ssl_settings` which is read-only.

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 clear context on what the tool does and includes parameter examples (ssl_type values). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention when not to use it, missing an explicit 'when-to-use' statement.

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