sap_sns_build_set_primary_domain_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the tool builds an unsigned transaction (not submitted). It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a transaction-building tool, the primary behavioral disclosure is correct and adequate.

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: two sentences covering purpose (first sentence) and usage instruction (second sentence). Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has simple parameters and no output schema. The description explains the purpose and the required follow-up step. It lacks information on constraints (e.g., domain ownership) but is sufficient for a build-then-sign pattern. Slightly more context could improve completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (owner and domain). The tool description does not add detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'owner' is already described as 'The Solana public key of the domain owner'). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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: 'Build an unsigned transaction to set a .sol domain as primary for the owner using the Bonfida SDK.' It identifies the specific verb (build), resource (unsigned transaction), and context (set primary domain). The name includes 'set_primary_domain', which matches, and it is distinct from sibling tools like sap_sns_resolve_domain.

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 includes an explicit next step: 'The returned transaction must be signed with sap_sign_transaction before submission.' This guides the agent on workflow. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like sap_sns_register_agent_domain or other domain-related tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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