delete_dkim_detail

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, yet it only restates the destructive verb 'Delete' that is already evident from the tool name. It does not disclose what happens to email authentication after deletion, whether the operation is reversible, or what the output confirms.

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 single phrase is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no meaningful structure to evaluate; the description is a placeholder that omits all operational substance.

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 destructive operation with three required parameters, zero annotation coverage, and 0% schema description coverage, a one-phrase description is grossly inadequate. The agent lacks the context to know what a DKIM detail is, what 'zoid' refers to, what consequences deletion has, and where this tool fits among the DKIM sibling operations.

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% and the description contributes zero parameter information. The three required parameters—especially the opaque 'zoid'—are left completely unexplained, and the description does nothing to compensate for the schema's silence.

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 'Delete DKIM detail' is a word-for-word transliteration of the tool name delete_dkim_detail, which makes it a tautology that restates the name rather than explaining the resource. It does nothing to differentiate this tool from the many DKIM-related siblings (add_dkim_details, set_default_dkim, regenerate_dkim_key, verify_dkim_key) or from the broader delete_* family.

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 no guidance on when this tool should be used versus alternatives. An agent cannot determine under what conditions a DKIM detail should be deleted, or why it would choose this over regenerate_dkim_key or set_default_dkim.

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