pihole_add_to_whitelist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the write action ('Add') but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the change is immediate or requires a restart, what happens if the domain is already whitelisted, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. The parenthetical '(allow list)' adds helpful clarification without bloating the text. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after adding (e.g., success confirmation, error conditions), whether the change persists, or how it interacts with Pi-hole's blocking system. Given the complexity of whitelist management and lack of structured coverage, more context is needed.

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% with the single 'domain' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., format constraints, validation rules, or examples beyond the schema's example). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a domain to') and the resource ('Pi-hole whitelist'), with the parenthetical '(allow list)' providing helpful clarification. It distinguishes from obvious opposites like 'pihole_add_to_blacklist' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'pihole_get_whitelist' or 'pihole_remove_from_whitelist'.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., Pi-hole must be running), when whitelisting is appropriate versus other actions, or how this relates to siblings like 'pihole_remove_from_whitelist' or 'pihole_get_whitelist'.

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