Generate DKIM keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a destructive side effect ('replaces any existing keys') and clarifies that DNS publishing is a separate step. This is valuable context beyond a simple 'generate' statement.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the action, important warning, and follow-up step all included. Perfectly front-loaded and 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and next step. It could mention what is returned or that generation might be asynchronous, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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?

The only parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema as 'The domain name'. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond using the term 'domain', so the baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 ('generate') and clear resource ('fresh DKIM key pair for a domain'), and explicitly notes that it replaces existing keys. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_domain_dkim, set_domain_dkim, and delete_domain_dkim.

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?

It provides a clear post-generation instruction: publish the DNS record from get_domain_dns_record record='dkim'. It also warns that existing keys are replaced. It doesn't explicitly compare against alternatives like set_domain_dkim, but the context is sufficient for correct usage.

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