Change WHOIS profile for domain

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it discloses automatic resolution of the current profile, failure if roles are not on the same profile, IRTP verification for owner contact changes, and asynchronous processing. These are exactly the kind of behavioral traits an agent needs.

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. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains behavior and caveats in short, scannable sentences. No filler or redundant wording beyond a mild restatement in the final 'Use this endpoint' sentence.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers essential operational context: registry submission, failure mode, IRTP trigger, and asynchronous behavior. The only gap is that it does not indicate what the asynchronous response contains or how to track the operation, but this is minor given the simplicity of the parameters and annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates the schema's parameter meaning (domain, contact roles, WHOIS profile ID) and adds only one useful cross-parameter constraint: the roles must currently be on the same profile. This is helpful but does not elevate parameter semantics substantially.

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 WHOIS contact profile for a domain.' It further clarifies the exact operation—repointing contact roles to a new WHOIS profile—and distinguishes it from WHOIS profile management tools by emphasizing the domain-level action.

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 clearly states when to use the endpoint: 'Use this endpoint to move a registered domain onto different contact information.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear to avoid confusion with profile CRUD or default-profile tools.

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