update_gravity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses latency ('Takes a minute or more') and concurrency handling ('Reports cleanly if a run is already in progress'), which are exactly the traits an agent needs to avoid a timeout or a duplicate trigger. It does not state whether the call blocks synchronously, nor any permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the cost, then the return/concurrency behavior. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 single-parameter operation with an output schema, this covers purpose, latency, concurrency, and the parameter's meaning. The only real gap is whether the call blocks until the run finishes or returns immediately, which matters given the stated minute-plus duration.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'Returns the last output_lines lines of the gravity run' explains both the meaning and the unit of the parameter. It does not mention the default of 20, which the schema supplies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Refresh Pi-hole gravity') and immediately defines the jargon with '(download adlists)', so an agent unfamiliar with Pi-hole knows what happens. No sibling tool performs a gravity refresh (update_adlist modifies a single list), so it is cleanly distinguishable.

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?

Usage is only implied: refreshing gravity is what you do after adlists change, but the description never says so or points at add_adlist/update_adlist as the preceding step. There are no exclusions or preconditions stated, though the lack of a competing sibling limits the practical harm.

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