kas_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 behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' without describing side effects, permissions, reversibility, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise and starts with the core purpose. The bullet-like listing of action and params is efficient, though the generic pick/filter note could be considered repetitive with the schema. Overall, it 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only a bare list of parameters without descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify what the update does, required inputs beyond the parameter names, or any behavioral context. The tool needs more elaboration for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema only shows a generic 'params' object with no inner fields. The description lists the actual parameter names (domain_name, ssl_certificate_sni_crt, etc.), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the meaning or format of these parameters, so compensation is partial.

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 'Manage SSL certificates' which is a verb+resource, and further specifies 'Action: update', making it clear this tool handles SSL certificate updates. It distinguishes from sibling tools by its focus on SSL, though 'manage' is somewhat generic.

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 implies usage for updating SSL certificates via the 'action: update' directive, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The generic pick/filter note applies to all tools but doesn't help differentiate usage.

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