ensure_dkim_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it only generates missing keys and does not touch existing ones (implied by 'generates missing keys'). However, it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites, or return behavior, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical clarification. Every word adds value, and there is no waste or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, scope, and behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though it does not explain downstream steps (e.g., DNS updates) or return values, which is a minor gap for a bulk operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage (vacuously). Per rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, so this score is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Ensure DKIM keys exist') with clear scope ('for all domains') and clarifies behavior ('generates missing keys'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like enable_dkim or validate_dkim, which target specific domains or validation.

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 a use case (ensuring all domains have DKIM keys) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like enable_dkim or validate_dkim. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so usage context is only implied.

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