dynadot_set_contact_lv_setting

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Set', implying mutation, but does not state whether the operation is destructive, if it requires specific permissions, or what side effects occur. It lacks details on idempotency or response behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is immediately clear. It is front-loaded with the action and scope. However, it could slightly benefit from explicit mention of the two required parameters to improve scanability.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does not provide sufficient context for a set operation. It fails to explain how this tool fits into the contact management workflow, what the result looks like, or any validation rules. The agent is left guessing about the operation's full implications.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that lvRegNum is a 'registration number', which adds minimal value over the parameter name. The contactId parameter is not described at all. No constraints or formats are given for either parameter.

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 action (Set) and the specific resource (.LV-specific contact data, namely registration number). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dynadot_set_contact_eu_setting or dynadot_set_contact_lt_setting by explicitly mentioning '.LV-specific'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., contact must exist), and no exclusions. The agent receives no context about the appropriate scenario for this tool.

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