Accept incoming domain move

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

The description directly contradicts the annotation 'idempotentHint: true'. The description states that 'already accepted moves cannot be accepted again', implying the operation is not idempotent (repeated calls will fail). The description otherwise provides helpful behavioral detail (doesn't complete move, sends email, status becomes 'activating'), but the contradiction with the annotation is a serious inconsistency.

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 multi-sentence and covers several aspects, but each sentence contributes unique information: prerequisites, contact requirements, post-acceptance behavior, and final use-case. It is reasonably front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be tightened, and some redundancy exists (e.g., requirements repeated).

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 tool with a nested object and 4 required sub-fields, the description explains all parameter requirements, the acceptance state, the email confirmation step, and the resulting status. It even points to the incoming move endpoint for following status. This is nearly complete; only explicit error cases or return format are missing, but there is no output 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds meaningful context: the WHOIS profiles become contacts, must belong to the account, abide by TLD requirements, and only the contact types used are applied while all four IDs must still be provided. This clarifies the semantics beyond the raw 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 action: 'Accept an incoming move for a specified domain.' It specifies the resource (domain move) and the operation (accept), and distinguishes it from the sibling reject tool. The closing sentence clarifies the intended use case. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It explicitly states a prerequisite: the move must still be waiting for your decision, and already accepted moves cannot be accepted again. It also explains the post-action flow (confirmation email, status activation). It does not explicitly compare with the reject sibling, but the purpose is clear. The guidance is sufficient for correct usage.

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