Create domain contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful non-annotation fact: the domains:manage API-key scope requirement. It does not say whether creation is idempotent, whether the contact is immediately usable, or what the response contains, so extra value is modest.

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 short sentences with zero waste: purpose first, the API-key scope requirement second. Every clause earns its place and it is front-loaded with what the tool does.

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 15-parameter destructive write with no output schema, the description covers purpose and auth scope but omits validation or conditional requirements (individual vs business fields) and return behavior. Those are described in the schema, but a destructive-create tool with no output schema would benefit from slightly more guidance.

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% and each of the 15 parameters is described in the schema, including kind, email, country_code, and the business/individual conditional requirements, so the description need not compensate. The description adds nothing param-specific beyond the required kind/email/country_code, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Create a domain contact') and adds the intended lifecycle purpose ('for future domain registration/transfer'), which distinguishes it from siblings like update_domain_contact and delete_domain_contact. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for future domain registration/transfer' gives clear context on when to create a contact, and the sibling-family (list/update/delete_domain_contact) makes the create-specific role inferable. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given, so it stops at 4.

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