Renew Domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions a required flag (SUBREG_READONLY=false), which is a useful precondition. However, it does not disclose consequences such as charges, idempotency, or what happens if the domain is already renewed or expired. The action itself is straightforward but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and object, the second gives a necessary prerequisite. Perfectly 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?

The tool is simple, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should provide more context. It explains what the tool does and a prerequisite, but lacks information about return values, cost/credit implications, or how the renewal affects the domain's status. Given the sibling set, the purpose is clear, but an agent may need more guidance on expected outcomes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'years' means the number of years to renew, which adds semantic value beyond the raw schema. The 'domain' parameter is self-explanatory by name and context, but no format or constraints are provided. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'renew' with the resource 'domain' and explicitly states the action ('for the given number of years'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like register_domain, delete_domain, and check_domain.

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?

States the tool is for renewing an existing domain, which implies it should be used after registration and not for new domains. Also notes the prerequisite SUBREG_READONLY=false, providing an environmental requirement. Does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use, but the context is reasonably clear.

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