contactDomainAssociate

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action and does not mention side effects, overwriting behavior, validation of contact IDs, or required permissions. The external API-reference link may contain more, but the description itself carries little behavioral detail beyond the nominal operation.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and role options without filler. The parenthetical roles are informative and the API reference link is a reasonable supplement.

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 straightforward association tool with a well-covered schema, the description gives the essential action but omits usage context and behavioral caveats. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the expected effect or preconditions would make it more complete, but the core information needed to identify the operation is present.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond grouping roles in parentheses, and it does not explain the relationship between contact_id and role-specific parameters, which the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Attach') and resource ('contact profiles to a domain') and enumerates the four roles (registrant/admin/billing/tech), which provides a clear picture of the operation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like portfolioDomainAssociate or contactAdd, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The intended use can be inferred from the name and action, but the description leaves the selection criteria to the agent.

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