domains_unsetDefaultWHOISProfileV1

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the profile is kept and only no longer pre-selected, preventing a mistaken assumption that the tool deletes the profile. It also notes the effect on new registrations.

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 three short sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds essential information: the action, the non-destructive nuance, and the practical use case.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the action, the side effect (profile retained), and the reason to use it. Minor gaps such as response behavior or idempotency are not critical given the tool's simplicity, but they prevent a perfect score.

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 already covers the single whoisId parameter with 100% coverage, including its type and a clear 'WHOIS ID' description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Unset WHOIS contact profile as default.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling setDefaultWHOISProfile tool and from profile deletion, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 final sentence, 'Use this endpoint to stop reusing contact information for new registrations,' provides an explicit use case. It implies the alternative is setting a default profile via the sibling tool, though it does not name that tool or state when not to use it.

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