renew_ens

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits such as being a blockchain write operation, requiring gas fees, and being irreversible. The description only states the action without any warning about costs, side effects, or required prerequisites like sufficient funds.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal for an agent to fully understand the tool. It omits critical context such as that this transaction requires gas/payment via privateKey, likely returns a transaction hash, and involves network-specific considerations. Given the existence of sibling tools like register_ens_name, more context is needed for correct 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters with full coverage (100%). The description itself adds no parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'extend' and identifies the resource 'registration of an ENS name', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like register_ens_name or transfer_ens. It is concise and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explicitly state that it applies only to already-registered names, nor does it mention conditions like 'before expiration'. The context is only implied by the word 'extend'.

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