removePrivacy

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The active verb 'Disable' clearly signals a state-changing operation on a named resource, but it does not disclose side effects such as WHOIS contact details becoming publicly visible or whether the operation is reversible.

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 with a reference link. It communicates the core action with no wasted words and is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete for invocation: it names the action and the target object. Minor gaps are the absence of a side-effect warning and explicit usage guidance, but these do not prevent correct invocation.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents 'domain'. The description adds no additional semantic detail, such as domain-name format or an example; the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Disable') and a clear resource ('WHOIS privacy on a domain'), making the operation unmistakable. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling addPrivacy, which performs the opposite action.

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 use this tool versus addPrivacy or other domain-management tools, and no prerequisites are stated, such as the domain currently having privacy enabled. The agent has to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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