add_to_blacklist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add') but doesn't clarify if this is a mutation (likely yes), what permissions are required, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that modifies data, this lack of detail is a significant 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 likely performs a mutation (adding to a blacklist), the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should compensate by explaining behavioral aspects like side effects or return values. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe and effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('campaign_id' and 'zone_ids') adequately. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'zones' represent or how blacklisting affects campaign performance, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Add') and target resources ('zones to campaign blacklist'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_to_whitelist' or 'auto_blacklist_zones', which would require specifying what makes this tool distinct (e.g., manual vs. automatic blacklisting).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_to_whitelist' or 'auto_blacklist_zones'. The description implies usage for adding zones to a blacklist but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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