generate

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true) are not contradicted, but the description does not elaborate on behavioral details beyond stating that it 'generates' artifacts. There is no mention of whether the tool modifies any state, caches results, or what the return format looks like, which are important for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 highly concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action and a bullet-like list of artifact types. Every sentence is necessary and directly contributes to understanding the tool.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, 2 required) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the main concept but omits details about return values, how the 'format' parameter auto-detection works, and what the generated artifacts look like (e.g., raw text). This leaves gaps for an agent to infer expected behavior.

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 schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description adds marginal value by grouping artifact types (e.g., 'spf_record (build a new SPF record)') but does not explain parameter semantics beyond what is 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 defines the tool's action (generate DNS/email security remediation artifacts) and lists all specific artifact types (spf_record, dmarc_record, etc.), making the purpose instantly clear. It also distinguishes from sibling tools (mostly check/scan tools) by explicitly stating 'Use when asked to generate or create a record or policy.'

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 explicit context ('Use when asked to generate or create a record or policy') and enumerates the artifact types, guiding the agent on valid use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, such as check_* tools for inspection.

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