regenerate_dkim_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a key is regenerated but does not explain consequences such as invalidation of the previous key, DNS record implications, or whether existing DKIM signatures will break.

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 one short sentence with no filler and the action is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing useful context.

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?

With 0% parameter schema coverage and no annotations, the description does not adequately explain how to call the tool correctly or what behavioral side effects to expect. The output schema mitigates return-value ambiguity, but the required inputs and usage context remain underdocumented.

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 provides no information about zoid, domain_name, or dkim_id. An agent is left to infer the meaning and role of each required parameter solely from its name, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Regenerate') and resource ('DKIM public key'), clearly indicating what the tool does. It is distinguishable from sibling DKIM tools like verify_dkim_key and delete_dkim_detail, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_dkim_details, set_default_dkim, or verify_dkim_key. The intended use case is only implied by the tool name and the single-line description.

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