allow_host

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the change is session-scoped and that the client's per-tool approval gates the action, which are real behavioral traits. It does not mention idempotency or the effect of re-allowing an already allowed host, but for a simple allowlist mutation this is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core action and example are front-loaded, and the session scope and approval caveat are placed second for added clarity.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and approval behavior. Minor gaps like idempotency or how to list allowed hosts are not critical for a correct call, so the definition is nearly complete.

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 100% and the only parameter already has a clear description with an example. The tool description adds context by tying the host to the navigation allowlist, but does not need to add further parameter semantics. 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 states a specific action ('Add a host') with a clear resource ('the navigation allowlist') and scope ('for this session'), with a concrete example. It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from siblings like disallow_host and list_allowed.

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 when to use it: before or when needing to navigate to a host not on the allowlist. It also clarifies session scoping and that client per-tool approval is the gate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions such as 'use disallow_host to remove' or 'use list_allowed to inspect', leaving some inference to the agent.

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