mailu_generate_domain_dkim

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

The description mentions that the tool can regenerate keys, implying it may overwrite existing keys, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as required permissions, potential downtime, or effects on existing DKIM records. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but offers minimal insight beyond the basic action.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no redundant information, and is appropriately sized for the simple nature of the tool.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description captures the core purpose but omits details such as what the tool returns (e.g., public key, status) or any side effects. This is adequate but leaves gaps in the agent's understanding of the complete behavior.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'domain' described as 'Nom de domaine'. The description adds context by linking the domain to the key generation operation, but it does not expand on the parameter's format, constraints, or examples. The value added is marginal, meeting the baseline.

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 verb 'generate' (or 'regenerate') and the resource 'DKIM/DMARC keys for a domain'. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like mailu_list_domains, which list domains, or mailu_get_domain, which retrieves domain info. No other sibling tool mentions DKIM key generation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify when to generate versus regenerate, nor does it compare with other domain-related tools. The agent receives no help in choosing this tool over siblings like mailu_create_domain or mailu_update_domain.

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