Start Transfer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent behavior, but the description goes beyond that by explaining the indefinite wait (no timer releases the hold) and the exact error code (TRANSFER_ZONE_EMPTY) with its operational meaning. It doesn't describe idempotency behavior or auth requirements, but the added context is genuinely valuable.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first states the action, second explains the critical behavioral fact (no timer), third covers the error and the force condition. Front-loaded with the primary action and zero filler.

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 two-parameter mutation tool without an output schema, the description covers the operational context an agent needs: why the hold exists, what error means, and when force is appropriate. It stops short of describing what a successful call returns or what happens to the transfer afterward, but the annotations carry the safety profile well.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces the meaning of 'force' with a concrete conditional ('when the domain genuinely needs no DNS at Porkbun'), but doesn't add syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific action (release a held inbound transfer to the registry) and its role as the final step of the no-downtime sequence. Sibling tools like prepare_transfer, cancel_transfer, and transfer_domain are not named directly, but the framing clearly distinguishes this as the hold-release step, which is ambiguous from the name alone.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (final step of the sequence, the only way to release a hold) and includes a clear when-not-to-use condition for the force flag: 'only pass force when the domain genuinely needs no DNS at Porkbun.' This is exactly the kind of conditional guidance an agent needs.

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