dynadot_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions operations like 'create, edit, delete' which imply mutations, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether deletions are permanent, rate limits, or what happens with regional settings. The description is too brief to provide meaningful context beyond the basic actions.

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 very concise—a single phrase listing key actions. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be more structured (e.g., separating operations from regional aspects) and some terms like 'regional settings' are vague, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

Given high complexity (15 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how actions differ. For a multi-action tool with significant parameter variety, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 93% (high), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it hints at 'regional settings' which loosely relates to actions like 'set_eu_setting', but doesn't explain parameter usage or dependencies. With 15 parameters, the description doesn't compensate for the 7% coverage gap or clarify how parameters map to different actions.

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 'WHOIS contact management: create, edit, delete, list, regional settings' which specifies the domain (WHOIS contacts), the operations (create, edit, delete, list), and mentions regional settings. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on contact management rather than domains, DNS, accounts, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'dynadot_account' might also involve contact info).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose specific actions (e.g., 'create' vs 'edit'), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'dynadot_domain' or 'dynadot_account'. Usage is implied through the action list but not explicitly stated.

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