set_resolver

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It prominently warns that records on the old resolver won't be visible after switching, and explains the special 'public' shortcut. It does not mention permission requirements or return values, but the critical side effect is clearly disclosed, making it more transparent than many mutation tools.

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 structured with a lead sentence, a brief explanatory paragraph, bulleted use cases, and a warning. While it is longer than minimal, every part adds valuable context. The front-loaded definition and clear sections make it easy to scan, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing essential information.

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 simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all necessary context: what a resolver is, when to use the tool, the special 'public' value, and the crucial warning about record visibility. An agent can confidently invoke this tool based solely on the description and schema.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'resolver' expects a contract address and by introducing the 'public' keyword as a shorthand for a specific address. This enhances the agent's understanding of valid input values.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Change the resolver contract for an ENS name.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like set_ens_records by explaining that the resolver is a contract where records live. This gives a precise, unambiguous purpose.

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 lists common use cases such as migrating to the latest ENS Public Resolver, pointing to a custom resolver, and fixing a name with no resolver set. This provides clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., set_ens_records) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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