update_ssl_ssh_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add a genuinely non-obvious behavioral caveat: clients must trust the chosen CA, and FortiGate-VM eval licenses re-sign RSA sites with 512-bit keys that modern clients reject. However, it omits permissions required, reversibility, and what happens to settings not supplied, so a mutation tool is only partially covered.

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 action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the second sentence delivers a high-value caveat. It is slightly verbose, but no sentence is wasted and both sentences earn their 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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with a nested 'extra' object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers CA semantics and one important caveat but omits return behavior, permission requirements, and how 'extra' is used. Adequate but with clear gaps for a full-coverage update tool.

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%, so each parameter is already documented (caname, untrusted_caname, comment, vdom, extra). The description's mention of the re-signing CA conceptually reinforces caname but adds no syntax, constraints, or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Update an SSL/SSH inspection profile") and illustrates the kind of field it governs (the CA used to re-sign certificates during deep inspection). It doesn't explicitly contrast with list_ssl_ssh_profiles, but the read/write relationship is unambiguous from the names.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The description explains the CA concept but never tells the agent under what circumstances it should call this update rather than reading the profile or another tool.

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