stalwart_generate_dkim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that selector is auto-generated if omitted and that algorithm defaults to 'rsa' (2048-bit) or 'ed25519', providing some parameter-level behavior. However, it omits side effects such as whether an existing key with the same selector is overwritten, permissions required, or where the generated key is stored. This is a moderate transparency gap.

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 concise and well-structured: a single lead sentence followed by a compact args list. Every line conveys distinct information—purpose, parameter source, default behavior, and algorithm options—without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a simple 3-parameter tool with one required parameter and an output schema. The description covers all parameters, provides a prerequisite (domain_id from list_domains), and clarifies defaults. Since an output schema exists, omission of return-value details is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and 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 0%, but the description fully compensates: it explains domain_id's source (from stalwart_list_domains), selector's auto-generation behavior, and algorithm's two options with the default key size. This adds meaningful value beyond the raw schema's types and defaults.

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 opens with 'Generate a new DKIM signing key for a domain,' which uses a specific verb (generate), identifies the resource (DKIM signing key), and specifies the target (domain). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stalwart_list_dkim_signatures, which lists existing keys.

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 prerequisite by noting that domain_id comes from stalwart_list_domains, guiding when this tool is appropriate (after a domain exists). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like stalwart_list_dkim_signatures for viewing existing keys, so there is no when-not guidance.

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