technitium_blocking

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly signals a mutation and discloses the important safety requirement that user confirmation must precede the call, plus that 'minutes' produces a temporary change. However, it never states what happens when both 'minutes' and 'enable' are supplied, whether the change is reversible, or how errors surface.

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 primary behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining lines are terse per-parameter notes with no filler. The fragment style is efficient, though the parameter notes are not visually separated from the mode description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers all four parameters plus the confirmation gate. Still missing for a 4-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage: whether 'minutes' requires 'enable=true', what happens on conflicting inputs, and the expected format for 'server'.

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% and the schema titles are bare ('Enable', 'Server', 'Minutes', 'Confirm'), so the description's per-parameter glosses are genuinely additive. It explains what each argument means and constrains 'server' to one name. It leaves the interaction between 'minutes' and 'enable' unexplained, which prevents a 5.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource ('Turn ad blocking off... or turn it on or off for good'), so the agent immediately knows this controls Technitium blocking state. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as technitium_settings_set or technitium_call, which is the only thing keeping it from a 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?

It gives real guidance: use 'minutes' to pause, 'enable' for a permanent switch, and an explicit workflow rule ('Ask the user first, then set confirm=true'). It also scopes the 'server' parameter to multi-server setups. No named alternatives or exclusions are offered, so it stops short of a 5.

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