Confirm domain restore

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

Annotations already declare destructive, idempotent, open-world, and non-read-only behavior. The description adds important context beyond annotations: payments are non-refundable once confirmed and the restore is queued only after payment succeeds, which is crucial for an irreversible payment 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 three sentences, front-loads the primary action, and contains no redundant filler. Every sentence adds relevant information about payment, irreversibility, and prerequisites.

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 destructive payment-confirmation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral constraints: non-refundability, payment dependency, and idempotency token reuse. It is nearly complete, though it could clarify retry behavior or the meaning of the optional domain/domain_id fields, which the schema handles.

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 parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description reiterates the idempotencyKey and quoteToken linkage to quote_domain_restore, but does not add meaningful syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb and resource: confirming a quoted domain restore and paying from the VPSNet account. It clearly distinguishes this action from quote_domain_restore by emphasizing confirmation and payment rather than quoting.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite: use the same idempotencyKey and quoteToken returned by quote_domain_restore, which implies this tool should be called only after obtaining a quote. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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