set_auth_code

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the code is overwritten, permissions required, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition. Ideal length for a simple tool.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks behavioral and usage context. With no annotations, it should ideally mention prerequisites or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes both parameters ('domain' and 'auth_code') with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning by specifying 'transfer authorization (EPP) code', but it does not elaborate on constraints or formats. Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('set') and the resource ('transfer authorization (EPP) code for a domain'). It is specific and uses domain terminology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_auth_code' or other 'set_*' tools, which would warrant a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'get_auth_code' or 'transfer_domain' exist, but the description gives no context for selection. A score of 2 reflects the complete absence of usage direction.

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