infomaniak_rotate_mail_dkim

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable nuance by clarifying that the 'check' path is read-only and that 'rotate' requires two-phase confirmation. No contradiction with annotations; the description supplements them.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the annotations, output schema, and the tool's complexity (destructive rotate with confirmation), the description covers the key safety distinction. It could be more explicit about prerequisites or the effect of rotation, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the core workflow.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description should compensate. It adds meaning to the 'action' parameter (check vs rotate) and explains why 'confirmation_token' exists ('rotate uses two-phase confirmation'). However, it does not explain how to obtain the token or that it is required for rotate, leaving some gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check or rotate the DKIM key for a mail hosting.' It uses specific verbs ('check' and 'rotate') and names the resource ('DKIM key', 'mail hosting'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which mention 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?

The description provides clear context on when to use each action: 'The check path is read-only; rotate uses two-phase confirmation.' This helps the agent decide between check and rotate, though it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state exclusions.

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