Confirm domain renew

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint/idempotentHint but not the consequences. The description adds crucial context beyond them: payment is non-refundable once confirmed, and the renewal is queued only after payment succeeds. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure a payment tool needs.

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 tight sentences with zero waste: the action is front-loaded, followed by the consequence (non-refundable) and the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 payment/confirmation mutation with a nested payment object and no output schema, the description covers the key concerns: irreversibility, payment-gated sequencing, and required quote artifacts. Return/result behavior is not described, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 already documents all six parameters including the nested payment object. The description reinforces that idempotencyKey/quoteToken must match the quote but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verbs (confirm, pay) and resource (quoted domain renewal) with clear scope, and distinguishes itself from quote_domain_renew by being the confirmation/payment step. An agent can tell it apart from confirm_domain_register and confirm_domain_transfer by the 'renewal' scope.

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 names the prerequisite: 'Requires the same idempotencyKey and quoteToken from quote_domain_renew,' which routes the agent to the quoting sibling first. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or failure handling, but the context is clear enough to select it correctly.

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