pihole_enable_blocking

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 action but doesn't mention whether this requires admin permissions, what happens to existing DNS queries during the transition, or if there are any side effects like temporary service disruption. This leaves significant behavioral 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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information and achieves maximum efficiency given the tool's simple purpose.

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 insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'enabling blocking' entails operationally, what the expected outcome looks like, or how to verify success. Given the complexity of DNS blocking systems and the lack of structured metadata, more context would be helpful.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a high baseline score since it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 ('Enable') and resource ('Pi-hole DNS blocking'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'pihole_disable_blocking' beyond the obvious verb difference, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pihole_disable_blocking' or 'pihole_get_blocking_status'. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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