pihole_update_gravity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation 'may take a minute to complete,' which is valuable behavioral context about execution time. However, it doesn't mention whether this requires admin privileges, if it interrupts service, what happens on failure, or what the expected output/confirmation looks like.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first states the core purpose, the second adds crucial behavioral context about execution time. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and its timing characteristic. However, as a potentially system-affecting operation (updating core blocking functionality), it should ideally mention permission requirements, service impact, or confirmation of success/failure to be fully 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and behavior rather than repeating what's already clear from the schema.

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 ('Update Pi-hole's gravity') and resource ('blocklists'), with the parenthetical 'refresh blocklists' providing helpful clarification. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like pihole_flush_cache or pihole_get_stats by focusing on updating/refreshing rather than retrieving or modifying lists.

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 implies usage when blocklists need refreshing, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like manually updating lists or other maintenance tools. No guidance on prerequisites, frequency, or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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