Renew a domain (PAID)

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnly=false), the description adds critical behavioral context: it spends money and requires confirm=true. It also reinforces the non-expired prerequisite, which is essential for safe invocation.

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 concise sentences deliver purpose, prerequisites, a financial warning, and an alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 paid mutation tool, the description covers the essential context: when to use, when not to use, the money-spending nature, and the confirmation requirement. Combined with the output schema and sibling context, this is fully sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 low (25%), so the description should compensate. It meaningfully explains the confirm parameter (must be true to place the paid renewal), and implies domain is the target. However, years and promotionCode are not explained beyond schema constraints, leaving some gaps.

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 tool renews an existing, non-expired domain to extend its expiry. It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from reactivate_domain, making the purpose 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?

It explicitly provides a conditional usage guideline: use this tool for non-expired domains, and directs users to reactivate_domain for expired domains. This directly addresses the key alternative and clarifies when not to use the tool.

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