Enable privacy protection

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining what enabling privacy protection does: it hides personal information from the public WHOIS database. The word 'hidden' clarifies that data is not deleted, which is useful given the destructiveHint annotation. It does not mention reversibility or why it is flagged destructive, but the annotations already cover idempotence and mutation.

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 short and front-loaded, with the main action in the first sentence. However, the third sentence 'Use this endpoint to protect domain owner's personal information from public view' largely repeats the rationale already expressed in the first two sentences, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter toggle operation, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly: it names the action, the domain scope, and the expected effect. Potential caveats such as reversibility or prerequisites would be nice but are not essential given the low complexity, high schema coverage, and existing 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?

The single parameter 'domain' is fully described in the schema as 'Domain name', giving 100% schema description coverage. The description itself adds no further format, example, or syntax details, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the documentation work.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Enable privacy protection for the domain.' It also explains the core consequence, hiding the owner's personal information from the public WHOIS database. Although it does not explicitly name the sibling disable tool, the action and effect clearly distinguish it from domains_disablePrivacyProtectionV1.

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 clear usage context: use this endpoint when the goal is to protect the domain owner's personal information from public view. It does not explicitly mention the disable counterpart or state when not to use it, but the context is obvious enough for a simple toggle operation.

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