opn_add_dnsbl_allowlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains key behaviors: 'without overwriting existing entries,' 'Changes are applied immediately,' and lists the return structure (dict with added, already_present, etc.). While it doesn't detail permissions or persistency, it provides sufficient behavioral context for an additive write operation.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, then usage context, prerequisite, parameter list, and return fields. Every sentence adds value with no redundancies. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 tool's simplicity (2 required params, simple return dict) and presence of output schema (explained in description), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to use, prerequisite, parameter details, and return format. No gaps remain for an AI agent to infer.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly defines each parameter: uuid as 'blocklist UUID from opn_list_dnsbl' and domains as 'domains to add, comma or newline-separated'. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types and includes format guidance for the domains string.

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 'Add domains to a DNSBL allowlist (whitelist) without overwriting existing entries,' specifying the action (add), resource (DNSBL allowlist), and key behavior (non-destructive). It distinguishes from sibling tools like opn_remove_dnsbl_allowlist and opn_set_dnsbl by emphasizing additive nature and preservation of existing entries.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when a domain is blocked by DNSBL and you need to allowlist it,' providing a clear use case with an example. It also instructs to 'Get the UUID from opn_list_dnsbl first,' indicating a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or point to alternative tools (e.g., opn_remove_dnsbl_allowlist for removal), which would improve differentiation.

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