set_default_dkim

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, but it only restates the operation. It does not explain whether the previous default is overwritten, whether multiple defaults are possible, whether the change is reversible, or what permissions are required.

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 text is maximally concise and has no filler, but it is under-specified: one short sentence does not earn its place for a tool with three required opaque parameters and no annotation support. It is compact rather than appropriately sized.

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 mutating configuration tool with no annotations and minimal schema information, the description is incomplete. It does not say why 'default' matters, what zoid refers to, or what happens after the call, leaving an agent to guess at the contract.

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 does not explain any of the three required parameters. zoid is particularly opaque, and dkim_id/domain_name are only inferable from their names, not from the description.

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?

Description states a clear action—setting a DKIM detail as the default—which distinguishes it from sibling DKIM tools like add_dkim_details, verify_dkim_key, and delete_dkim_detail. It is slightly thin because it never defines the implications of 'default', but the verb and resource are specific enough for basic selection.

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 on when to invoke this tool rather than add, verify, regenerate, or delete DKIM details. The intended use is implied by the operation name but never stated explicitly, and no alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.

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