renew_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool SPENDS MONEY, creates a CHARGED renewal order + invoice, is irreversible after confirm, and returns a Pending status. It also covers the registrar fulfillment flow. While it doesn't mention rate limits or auth scope explicitly in the description (it is present), the behavioral traits are well-covered for a money-spending operation.

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 a single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core action. It packs all necessary information without fluff. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring parameter details (e.g., as separate sentences or bullet points) for easier scanning. Overall efficient and concise.

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?

No output schema, but the description mentions the initial status (Pending). It covers the full lifecycle: required scope, cost, confirm flag, order/invoice creation, auto-renew option, parameter constraints. It doesn't explain post-renewal actions (e.g., checking order status) but that is likely handled by other tools. For a renewal tool, the information is sufficient and 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond schema: explains the confirm flag's purpose (only after user approval), id source (list_domains), years default 1, and autoRenew's effect. It integrates parameter meaning with the overall flow, adding value over the schema alone.

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 clearly states 'Renew an owned domain' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like register_domain, transfer_domain, and set_domain_nameservers by detailing the renewal workflow (creates charged order, invoice, optionally sets auto-renew). Purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Pass confirm:true only after the user has approved the cost.' It also explains that id comes from list_domains and that the operation spends money. While it doesn't directly list alternatives, the context of sibling tools and the clear renewal focus provide sufficient direction. Could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use (e.g., for initial registration).

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