Update Denied IPs

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

Annotations provide only openWorldHint: true, indicating possible side effects, but the description does not elaborate on behavioral traits like whether the update replaces or appends to the existing list, required permissions, or potential impacts on the environment. This lack of detail is a gap.

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, clear and direct. It is concise, but for a tool that modifies state, more structured information would be beneficial.

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 that this is a mutation tool with an output schema (not described), and no mention of return values or side effects, the description is incomplete. The agent needs to know what happens after update and whether confirmation is provided.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (environment_id and ip_list). The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Update) and the resource (list of denied IP addresses for an environment). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kinsta.tools.denied-ips (which likely lists or reads the denied IPs) by specifying the update functionality.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as kinsta.tools.denied-ips for reading or kinsta.tools.clear-cache for other operations. The description lacks context about prerequisites or when updates are appropriate.

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