sendcraft_add_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main action (adding a domain) and the return value (DNS records), but does not mention side effects, prerequisites, uniqueness requirements, or whether verification is automatically triggered. This is a moderate disclosure, not fully transparent.

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 front-loads the action and outcome. It contains no filler and every phrase 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?

For a one-parameter add operation with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention the follow-up verification step with sibling tools, but that may be considered extra context; the core operation is complete.

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 describes the single 'domain' parameter with a format example, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter details, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 ('Add') and resource ('sender domain'), and clearly states the outcome (getting DNS records for SPF, DKIM, DMARC, BIMI). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sendcraft_verify_domain or sendcraft_analyze_dmarc, which operate on existing domains.

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 clearly implies the tool is for setting up a new sender domain, as opposed to verifying or analyzing existing ones. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool when adding a domain.

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