Reinstall website SSL

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

The description explicitly states that the current platform certificate is 'revoked and removed', which is a destructive action on the existing certificate. Yet the annotations declare 'destructiveHint': false. This is a direct contradiction between the description and the structured metadata. Because the description contradicts the annotation, the score is 1 per the rubric, even though the description itself provides useful behavioral details about background execution and status transitions.

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 informative but not overly verbose. It front-loads the core action, explains the asynchronous behavior and status transitions, and then lists error codes in a compact manner. The structure is logical and efficient, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly tightened.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does a good job of covering the operational context: it explains the immediate return, the background process, status outcomes, and the specific error codes for various failure conditions. It does not mention authentication requirements or success response format, but these are likely common across the API. The main gap is the annotation contradiction, which affects this dimension indirectly.

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 already describes both parameters ('Domain name' and 'Agency Plan website UID') with 100% coverage. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format, examples, or relationships. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 tool's purpose: it replaces the Let's Encrypt certificate for a domain, revoking and removing the current certificate before starting a new setup. The verb 'Replaces' and the specific resource make the function unambiguous, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like install, uninstall, and status check.

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 explains the behavior and error conditions (e.g., 422 for free subdomains, 429 for rate limit, 403/404 for invalid targets), which gives some context on when it will succeed or fail. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as installing a fresh SSL or uninstalling, so the agent must infer when to use reinstall versus those. This is implicit guidance rather than explicit routing.

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