add_to_allowlist

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect on scoring, that duplicates are silently skipped, the domain format requirements, and that all signals remain visible (monitoring continues). This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

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, with each sentence serving a purpose. It is front-loaded with the primary action, followed by effect, format requirements, and limits. No unnecessary words or repetitions.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary information: purpose, effect on scoring, domain format, coverage of subdomains, limits, and duplicate handling. It is complete for an AI agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 already describes the 'domains' parameter well. The description adds value by explaining that adding a registrable domain covers all subdomains automatically and that subdomains/full URLs are rejected. This extra context goes beyond the schema's description, warranting a score above the baseline of 3.

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: 'Add one or more domains to this account's trusted allowlist.' It specifies the action, the resource (allowlist), and the effect (suppressing compound signal and brand impersonation floor). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_allowlist and remove_from_allowlist by focusing on addition.

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 good guidance on domain format (registrable only) and limitations (max 100 domains per request, 1,000 total). It implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to add domains) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or give 'when not to use' advice. However, for a simple add operation, the guidance is sufficient.

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