dns_flush_allowed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive effect ('All allowed domains will be removed') and the confirmation requirement ('Requires confirm=true to execute'). However, it does not mention whether the action is reversible or how the system responds when confirm is false, though the schema partially covers this.

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 front-load the primary action and effect, then add the safety condition. No wasted words or redundant details.

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, destructive flush operation, the description adequately covers purpose, effect, and the single parameter's behavior. No output schema is needed, and the existing schema completes the parameter context.

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 schema already fully describes the confirm parameter. The description adds no new semantic information beyond restating that confirm=true is required, so it does not exceed the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool flushes the entire allow list and that all allowed domains will be removed. It uses a specific verb ('flush') and resource ('allow list'), distinguishing it from related tools like dns_remove_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 usage for removing all allowed domains, but it does not explicitly contrast with dns_remove_allowed or other alternatives. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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