Delete DKIM keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral impact. It does state the key consequence (outgoing email no longer DKIM-signed) and emphasizes the need for confirm=true. While it doesn't explicitly say 'irreversible', the schema's confirm parameter covers that, and the description adds meaningful context beyond simple deletion.

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 two sentences, tightly packed with relevant information: the action, the consequence, and the confirmation requirement. No wasted words or redundancy. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, effect, and required confirmation. The schema provides parameter details, and the description gives enough context for an agent to 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 100% for both parameters (name and confirm), so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates that confirm=true is required, but this adds no new information beyond what the schema already states. It doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Remove') and clearly identifies the resource ('DKIM keys of a domain'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like generate_domain_dkim or set_domain_dkim, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear context by stating that outgoing email will no longer be DKIM-signed, which implies when to use the tool (when DKIM signing is no longer desired). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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