set_ens_records

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Set records' but does not disclose that this is an on-chain transaction requiring a private key, potentially incurring gas costs, or that it overwrites existing records. No details about irreversibility, ownership failure modes, or return value are given.

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 front-loads the action ('Set records') and includes the resource and key record types in parentheses. Every word earns its place with no waste.

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?

This is a mutation tool with nested parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to provide more context. It fails to mention that it returns a transaction hash, that it requires the caller to own the ENS name, or that it sends a blockchain transaction. The description is adequate for understanding the basic action but incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists 'address, text records, contenthash' which redundantly mirrors the schema's property descriptions. It adds no extra meaning about parameter relationships, constraints, or format beyond what the schema already provides.

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 records') and the resource ('an ENS name'), and specifies the record types (address, text records, contenthash). This distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_ens_text_records and get_ens_avatar, as well as other write operations like register_ens_name and transfer_ens.

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 implies this tool is for writing ENS records, contrasted with the many read-oriented sibling tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention prerequisites like ownership. The required privateKey parameter hints at ownership, but no exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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