pihole_disable_blocking

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 clearly indicates this is a mutation tool (disabling is a write operation) and mentions the duration option, but lacks details on permissions required, side effects (e.g., impact on network traffic), or what happens after the duration expires. It adds some value but leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loads the core purpose and includes the key optional feature. There's no wasted language, and every word earns its place in conveying essential information.

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 minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter, but lacks information on permissions, side effects, or response format. Given the complexity (a write operation affecting DNS blocking), it should do more to be 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'duration' parameter. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that duration is optional and implying indefinite disabling if omitted, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states (e.g., units clarification or behavioral nuances).

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 specific action ('Disable Pi-hole DNS blocking') and resource ('Pi-hole DNS blocking'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'pihole_enable_blocking' and 'pihole_get_blocking_status'. It uses a precise verb ('Disable') that directly contrasts with sibling tools.

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 context for usage by mentioning the optional duration parameter, which helps differentiate when to use this tool (e.g., for temporary vs. indefinite disabling). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'pihole_enable_blocking' for re-enabling.

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