Set a contact profile as default

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

Annotations already cover read-only, destructive, and idempotency hints. The description adds behavioral context by stating the scope: 'Future orders pick the default; domains already registered are not touched' and that it 'returns the roles now applied'. This clarifies the side-effect scope and return behavior beyond the annotation flags, though it does not detail error cases or authentication requirements, which are not critical here.

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?

Three concise sentences, each serving a purpose: the first states the core function, the second gives behavioral scope, and the third provides usage routing. No filler words; information is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 tool with two parameters, a nested object, and an output schema, the description covers the action, role mapping, effect on future vs existing domains, return value, and how to find the id. It also distinguishes from related tools. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke it is missing.

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 both id and body are already described. The description adds value by explaining the role semantics ('org (registrant), admin, tech and billing') and by telling how to obtain the id via eurodns_contact_get_profile. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, enriching the parameter understanding.

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 the specific verb 'Makes' and the resource 'contact profile', and clarifies the exact action: setting the profile as default for selected roles (org, admin, tech, billing). It differentiates from siblings by referencing get_profile and save_profile, so an agent can immediately know this tool is for default-role assignment, not profile editing or retrieval.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool: to set defaults for future orders. It also says what it does not affect (existing domains) and directs the agent to eurodns_contact_get_profile for finding the id and eurodns_contact_save_profile for editing profile fields instead. These clear alternatives and conditions leave no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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