transfer_domain

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: 'SPENDS MONEY: places a transfer-in ORDER + invoice...' and notes the returned status starts Pending. It also warns about irreversibility and the need for user approval. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: first sentence states purpose and scope, second sentence covers workflow and parameters. Front-loaded, no wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (6 params, 3 required, financial implications, no output schema), the description is very complete. It explains the entire transfer process, cost, required approval, and each parameter's role. Mentions return status, providing some output context.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's behavior (omit/false refuses and makes no API call), domain as full name, epp as code from losing registrar, and notes for nameservers and idProtection. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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: 'Transfer a domain in from another registrar.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like register_domain or renew_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?

Explicitly requires 'scope domains:write' and instructs to pass 'confirm:true only after the user has approved the cost.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and implies alternatives for other domain operations.

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