domains_setWHOISProfileAsDefaultV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: the default is TLD-specific and pre-selected during registration. However, it does not disclose what happens when a default already exists (e.g., whether it is overwritten), nor does it mention any permissions or side effects. This is adequate but not rich, so a 3 is appropriate.

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: one main sentence followed by two short explanatory sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes only relevant context about TLD association and the benefit of avoiding repetitive contact selection. No wasted 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the core action, the concept of the default and TLD, and the practical benefit. It does not need to explain return values (none specified) or provide additional details that would be redundant in such a simple context.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter whoisId, though its description is minimal ('WHOIS ID'). The tool description adds context by referring to 'WHOIS contact profile', which helps clarify the parameter's role, but it does not add additional syntax or constraints beyond the schema. The baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Set WHOIS contact profile as default.' It further clarifies the behavior by explaining that the default is pre-selected for the TLD it belongs to when registering new domains. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like domains_unsetDefaultWHOISProfileV1 and domains_deleteWHOISProfileV1.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use this endpoint to avoid picking contact information for every registration.' This explains when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use the unset sibling). Therefore it has clear context but lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives, matching a 4.

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