Обновление параметров домена

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

Annotations already mark this as a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds behavioral detail by specifying exactly what changes can be made (auto-renewal toggle, IP assignment). It does not contradict annotations and provides enough context about the mutation's scope, though it does not elaborate on side effects or permissions.

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 a single, compact sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is appropriately sized, front-loads the key actions, and contains no irrelevant information. Every word 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 relatively simple tool with only 3 parameters and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough. It covers the main operations and the required field. There is no output schema, which is acceptable, and the annotations provide safety context. It could optionally mention limitations (e.g., only for owned domains), but this is not critical given the existing clarity.

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 each parameter is well-documented. The description provides a high-level summary but does not add meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the actions. The 'и/или' (and/or) hints that both parameters can be updated together, which is a small addition, but overall the parameter semantics are already fully detailed in the schema.

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's specific actions: enabling/disabling domain auto-renewal and/or changing the linked IP address. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_domain_name_servers, which handle a different aspect of domain configuration. The resource (domain) and verb (update) are immediately apparent.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to modify auto-renewal or the linked IP of a domain. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the specificity of the stated actions makes it evident that this tool is not for other domain-related updates (e.g., name servers). The requirement that FQDN is mandatory is also mentioned, giving a key prerequisite.

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