upload_ssl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure, and it delivers almost none. It does not say whether the upload overwrites an existing certificate, whether it requires a website/domain context, what permissions are needed, or what happens on failure. 'Upload' implies mutation but nothing about scope or side effects is stated.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy, so it earns only a middling score.

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 mutation tool taking a nested object parameter with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits target context, payload format, and side effects, leaving significant gaps an agent cannot fill from structured data.

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% and the single parameter 'cert' is an undocumented nested object with no defined properties. The description adds nothing about the expected certificate shape (PEM bundle, key, chain), so an agent has no way to construct a valid payload beyond the parameter name.

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 phrase 'Upload SSL certificate' names a concrete verb and resource, so the basic purpose is discernible. However, it gives no differentiation from the many SSL-related siblings (obtain_ssl, renew_ssl, resolve_ssl, apply_ssl, create_certificate), leaving the agent unable to tell which operation actually uploads a certificate versus generating or binding one.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus obtain_ssl, apply_ssl, or resolve_ssl, no prerequisites, and no mention of which website/domain the upload targets. The agent must guess the correct routing entirely from the name.

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