opn_update_dnsbl

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that it flushes DNS cache, does not use savepoint protection, changes are immediate and irreversible, and returns specific dict keys. All behavioral traits are transparently documented.

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 two short paragraphs with a note. The first sentence states the core action, then usage examples, then caution. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use, side effects, return structure. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add param info, and it doesn't miss anything.

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 that the tool reloads DNSBL blocklist files and restarts Unbound to apply them. This verb+resource pattern is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like opn_set_dnsbl (which probably configures rather than reloads) and opn_list_dnsbl (which lists).

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 explicitly says when to use: when DNSBL lists need refreshing without configuration change, e.g., after service restart or to force picking up pre-generated blocklists. It also warns about immediate effect and lack of auto-revert, which implies when not to use (if rollback needed). This provides clear context and alternatives.

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