ss_contact_attr_save

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions TLD-specific attributes and gives an example but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing attributes, prerequisites (e.g., contact must exist), idempotency, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's purpose with a concrete example. No unnecessary words.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose but lacks context on return values, success indicators, or prerequisites. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the example (.ca requires language and CIRA category), which ties parameters to the use case. 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?

The description clearly states the tool saves TLD-specific contact attributes with a concrete example (.ca). The verb 'Save' and resource 'TLD-specific contact attributes' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling ss_contact_attr_get (retrieve) but does not specify whether it creates or updates.

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 implies usage for TLDs with specific requirements (e.g., .ca) but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. The example provides context, but no exclusions or comparisons to siblings like ss_contact_save.

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