domain_restore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that an additional fee typically applies, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain side effects, irreversibility, or permission requirements, leaving gaps for a mutation action.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the key caveat. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity and full schema coverage, the description provides the essential context: what the tool does, when it applies, and the cost implication. It lacks details on outcome/response, but no output schema exists and the description is sufficient for typical usage.

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%, so both parameters (domain and discountCode) are already described. The description adds the context of restoring from redemption but does not elaborate on parameter formats or behaviors beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 target resource (a deleted domain), plus a specific condition (still within redemption grace period). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like domain_renew or domain_create, as it's specifically for restoring already-deleted domains.

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 when to use this tool: when a domain is deleted and within its redemption grace period. It also notes the typical fee, which is a practical caution. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as avoiding use for domains past the grace period or using domain_renew instead.

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