add_dkim_details

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 and only states the bare action. It does not disclose side effects such as whether setting is_default=true alters the domain's default DKIM key, whether existing DKIM settings are overwritten, or whether the change is reversible. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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 six-word sentence is front-loaded with the verb and contains zero fluff, which is structurally sound. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than deliberate compression: a five-parameter mutation tool with side effects and sibling ambiguity needs more than one sentence to justify this level of conciseness.

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 tool with five parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and four DKIM-related siblings, this one-liner is severely incomplete. The output schema mitigates the return-value burden, but input semantics (notably zoid), prerequisites, side effects, and sibling differentiation are all missing, so an agent cannot reliably invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it adds nothing about any of the five parameters. The DKIM/domain context helps interpret selector, key_size, is_default, and domain_name, but zoid is completely opaque—neither the schema nor the description explains what it refers to.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Add') with a specific resource ('DKIM details') and target ('domain'), so the basic function is clear. However, it provides no differentiation from DKIM sibling tools such as set_default_dkim, regenerate_dkim_key, verify_dkim_key, and delete_dkim_detail, so an agent cannot tell which DKIM operation this is from the description alone.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the DKIM-related alternatives, and states no prerequisites such as the domain already existing via add_domain. No workflow ordering is hinted either—for instance, whether one should add DKIM details before or after verify_dkim_key or set_default_dkim—so there is no help choosing among siblings.

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