registrar_lock_enable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the primary effect and omits idempotency, failure conditions, auth requirements, fees, or what happens if the domain already locked.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, object, and purpose with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one fully documented parameter and no output schema. The description is minimally viable, but missing edge-case behavior (e.g., already locked, propagation time, side effects) keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, and the description explicitly includes 'for a domain', matching the domain parameter. It adds no extra guidance on formatting, validation, or domain status requirements, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Enable registrar lock for a domain') and states the intended outcome ('prevent unauthorized transfers'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like registrar_lock_disable and registrar_lock_status.

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 phrase 'to prevent unauthorized transfers' gives explicit context for when to use the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous relative to the disable/status siblings.

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