domain_renew

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'renew' without mentioning that this may involve a payment, affect the domain's expiration date, or require specific conditions. It does not describe side effects or post-conditions, leaving the agent to guess what happens.

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, clear sentence that states the purpose without any unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the verb 'Renew' and resource, it is maximally concise.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention potential costs, whether the renewal is immediate, if there are any restrictions on renewal timing, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool with three parameters and no other structured context, this is insufficiently complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., domain, period, discountCode). It does not clarify the format of period or how discountCode is applied, but the schema descriptions already cover those.

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 verb 'renew' and the resource 'existing domain', and distinguishes this tool from domain_create and domain_update by emphasizing 'renew' and 'additional registration period'. It is specific and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies the tool is for renewing an existing domain rather than creating or updating one, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any prerequisites (e.g., domain must not be expired). Sibling tool names like domain_create and domain_update reinforce the intended usage.

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