Update Denied IPs

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint: true, which is not a safety annotation. The description says 'Update' which implies a mutating operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this replaces the entire list or appends to it, whether it's destructive to existing entries, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with only two parameters. No wasted words.

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 simple update tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it doesn't clarify whether the ip_list replaces the entire existing list or merges with it, which is a meaningful ambiguity for an agent deciding how to invoke it. The sibling kinsta_tools_denied-ips likely provides the current list, but the relationship isn't stated.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 when coverage is high. The description's mention of 'list of denied IP addresses' aligns with the ip_list parameter, but no additional semantics are provided.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('list of denied (blocked) IP addresses for an environment'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kinsta_tools_denied-ips (which likely retrieves the list), but the action verb and resource are clear enough.

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 context: it's for updating the denied IP list for an environment. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., kinsta_tools_denied-ips for viewing, or kinsta_environments_ssh_ip-allowlist_update for SSH allowlist). No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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