Update Transfer Auth Code

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (destructive, idempotent, open-world); the description adds behavior the agent cannot get elsewhere: validation happens against the registry before storage, bad codes are rejected immediately rather than days later, non-repairable transfers return TRANSFER_NOT_REPAIRABLE, and a denial notice can masquerade as a bad code. Strong added value beyond the annotations.

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?

Four sentences, all load-bearing, with the operation and its alternative front-loaded before the caveats. Slightly dense, but nothing is redundant and no sentence is 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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, validation timing, failure mode (TRANSFER_NOT_REPAIRABLE) and a diagnostic caveat, while annotations carry the safety profile. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or avoid calling it.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by explaining that auth_code is the replacement EPP code from the losing registrar and is validated before being stored, which clarifies the semantics of the required input beyond the schema text.

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 verb+resource ('Replace the authorization code on an inbound transfer') plus the follow-on action ('re-queue it'), which cleanly separates it from sibling mutation tools like cancel_transfer or start_transfer. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 names the situation that selects this tool ('stalled because the code was wrong'), names the alternative it replaces ('instead of cancelling, refunding and resubmitting'), and states the eligibility precondition ('Only repairable transfers qualify'). It even warns when the tool is the wrong diagnosis (a losing registrar's refusal also surfaces as a bad-auth-code status).

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