Disable privacy protection

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

Annotations already signal mutation and destructiveness; the description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the real-world consequence—private information becomes visible in the public WHOIS database. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand the sensitivity of the action.

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 short sentences, all earning their place: the action, the consequence, and the usage directive. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter mutation endpoint with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description provides the essential behavioral and usage context. It doesn't describe return values, but with no output schema and a simple action, that is not a significant gap.

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% for the only parameter, with 'domain' documented as 'Domain name.' The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the schema already does the necessary work; 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Disable privacy protection for the domain') and clearly distinguishes the tool's effect from its sibling enablePrivacyProtectionV1. The consequence—making the owner's information publicly visible in WHOIS—reinforces what the tool does rather than merely restating the title.

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 gives clear context for when to use the endpoint: 'Use this endpoint to make domain owner's information publicly visible.' It does not explicitly name the alternative (enablePrivacyProtectionV1) or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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