add_to_whitelist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'add' without disclosing side effects (e.g., persistence, effect on blocking immediately, behavior if domain already exists). The description does not mention return values or error conditions. This is minimal 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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure such as sections or explicit separation of concerns. While not overly verbose, it could be improved with a brief mention of parameters or behavior without losing conciseness.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description is incomplete. There is no mention of the output schema (even though one exists), no details on idempotency or error handling. With many sibling tools, more context would help the agent choose correctly. The description leaves significant gaps compared to a well-defined tool.

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 0%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not mention parameters at all, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names. 'domain' is self-explanatory but 'comment' could benefit from clarification. The description fails to add meaning beyond the bare 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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'domain to the allow list (whitelist)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_to_blacklist and remove_from_whitelist by specifying the allow list concept and the add action. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, whether domains must be unique, or when to prefer add_to_whitelist over other tools like add_to_blacklist. The agent must infer usage from context.

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