Unblock domains

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting the rules are enabled and that confirm=true is required. This reinforces the mutation/destructive nature without contradicting the annotations.

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 core action and immediately followed by key usage guidance. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 mutation risk and destructive annotation, the description provides the essential confirmation requirement and domain-format guidance. It lacks explicit mention of return values or side effects beyond creation, but the schema and annotations cover most other operational details.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining hostname semantics ('exact domains first; wildcards are broader') and emphasizing the confirm=true requirement, which enriches parameter understanding.

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+resource construction ('Create enabled custom bypass rules') and the title 'Unblock domains' reinforces the purpose. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like create_block_rules and create_redirect_rules.

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 usage context ('Create enabled custom bypass rules') and practical guidance ('Use exact domains first; wildcards are broader'), plus the confirmation requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is clear from the tool name and sibling context.

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