Confirm domain register

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical context: the payment is non-refundable, the domain action is queued only after payment succeeds, and the operation requires token reuse. This goes well beyond what structured fields communicate.

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 tightly packed sentences: what it does, what it costs, and what identifiers to pass. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given 11 parameters, a nested payment object, and mutation semantics, the description covers the essential workflow (quote identifiers, non-refundability, payment gating). No output schema is needed since the domain action is queued asynchronously.

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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds the reuse constraint for idempotencyKey and quoteToken, but no format/semantic details beyond that. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Confirm a quoted domain registration') and the payment side effect ('pay from the VPSNet account'). Sibling tools quote_domain_register_register are named, making the quote/confirm pairing unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly directs that the same idempotencyKey and quoteToken from quote_domain_register must be reused, and warns that payments are non-refundable once confirmed. The quote→confirm workflow is clearly gated on having a prior quote.

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