domains_changeWHOISProfileForDomainV1

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 discloses asynchronous processing, the IRTP verification trigger for owner-contact changes, the automatic resolution of the current profile, and the failure condition when roles are not on the same profile. This is rich, non-obvious behavior that goes well beyond the schema.

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 and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by the key mechanism, constraints, and usage note. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is well-explained for its complexity. It covers the change action, automatic resolution, failure conditions, IRTP verification, asynchronous behavior, and when to use it. Without an output schema, it could mention response format, but the descriptive text is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying the relationship between parameters: roles are repointed to a new profile, and there is a constraint that all given roles must already be on the same profile. This goes beyond the parameter descriptions in 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 a specific action: 'Change WHOIS contact profile for a domain.' It also explains the mechanism ('Repoints the given contact roles to a new WHOIS profile') and distinguishes itself from related domain/profile tools by focusing on reassignment of a domain to an existing profile.

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 explicitly says 'Use this endpoint to move a registered domain onto different contact information,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to avoid confusion with sibling tools like setting a default profile.

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