Enable domain lock

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that enabling the lock prevents transfer until the lock is disabled. This clarifies the operational impact and implies reversibility. The annotations already cover idempotency and destructive intent, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes useful information: what it does, what effect it has, and why to use it.

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 simple single-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the action, effect, and reasoning. It does not mention prerequisites like domain ownership or errors when re-enabling the lock, but the annotations and schema richness make the tool straightforward to invoke correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'domain', and its schema description ('Domain name') fully covers the meaning. The tool description does not add extra constraints or format details, so the baseline score 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 states a clear verb ('Enable') and resource ('domain lock'), making the operation unambiguous. It also differentiates from the sibling domains_disableDomainLockV1 by describing the exact action and consequence.

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 explicitly says to use this endpoint to secure domains against unauthorized transfers. It does not mention alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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