Restore Domain

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it flags the operation as FINANCIAL, states it's asynchronous with an operationId to poll, and warns that fully released domains cannot be recovered. Annotations only indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, which are insufficient to convey the financial and async nature.

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 structured well: purpose first, then warnings, then async behavior. Every sentence provides value. Slightly lengthy due to multiple warnings, but appropriately detailed for a financial operation.

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 the simple parameter set and no output schema, the description covers essential context: purpose, prerequisites (redemption period), financial warning, user confirmation need, and async behavior with polling instruction. Missing explicit mention of the operationId return type, but still complete enough.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single parameter 'domain'. The tool description does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the warning about redemption period indirectly adds context. Baseline 3 applies since schema covers all parameters.

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 the action ('Restore') and the specific resource ('a domain that is in the redemption grace period after expiration or deletion'). It distinguishes from siblings like renew_domain, register_domain, and transfer_domain by specifying the unique context of redemption period.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: only for domains in redemption period. It warns about financial cost and advises user confirmation. It implicitly excludes domains not in redemption period, but does not name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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