Enable or disable domain privacy (WhoisGuard)

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Idempotent' adds no new information. It does add value by explaining automatic WhoisGuard subscription resolution and the role of forwardedToEmail for WHOIS contact mail relay. Yet it does not disclose potential costs or external side effects despite openWorldHint=true, so transparency is moderate.

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 concise at four short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The final sentence 'Idempotent' is redundant with the idempotentHint annotation, but it is harmless. Overall, every sentence earns its place except that minor redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return value details are covered. The description covers the toggle behavior, automatic subscription resolution, and conditional email requirement, which is sufficient for correct invocation. Minor gaps: it does not mention how to check current privacy state or what happens if no WhoisGuard subscription exists.

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 67%, and the description adds important meaning to forwardedToEmail by clarifying it is 'Required when enabling,' which is not evident from the schema's optional flag. It also reinforces enabled's true/false semantics. It does not add domain format guidance, but the conditional requirement is a meaningful enhancement over the schema.

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 function: 'Turn WhoisGuard/domain privacy on or off for a domain.' The verb 'Turn...on or off' plus resource 'domain privacy' is specific and unambiguous, and the setter action clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_domain_privacy tool.

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 provides a key usage condition: 'Enabling requires a forwardedToEmail,' which tells the agent when a parameter is mandatory. It also notes automatic subscription ID resolution, giving context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_domain_privacy for checking current status, so it stops short of full when-to-use guidance.

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