panelica_domains_post_v1_domains_id_dkim_enable

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

The description adds 'Required scopes: domains:write' and 'Mutating: changes server state,' which are useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain what specific server state changes occur, and the mutation fact is already implied by readOnlyHint=false; no contradiction with annotations exists.

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 short, well-structured, and front-loaded with the endpoint, category, scope, and mutation flag. The 'Create enable' line is redundant and confusing, but the overall format is tight and scannable.

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 simple single-required-param mutation with meaningful annotations, the description covers the key operational facts: endpoint, scope, and state change. The main gap is the opaque body parameter and lack of response details, but the schema already defers body structure to external API docs.

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 of 3 applies even though the description itself adds no parameter-level detail. The schema documents id as a path parameter and marks body as an open, non-statically-declared object, so the parameters are minimally but adequately described.

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 opening 'Create enable' is vague and awkward, but the HTTP line 'POST /v1/domains/:id/dkim/enable' makes the action concrete: enable DKIM on a specific domain. The resource and verb are identifiable and distinct from the sibling dkim_disable tool, though no explicit prose states 'Enable DKIM.'

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 auth scope and mutation status but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions dkim_disable or conditions such as 'use when DKIM is not yet enabled,' leaving selection context entirely to inference.

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