dns_flush_blocked

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the destructive effect ('All manually blocked domains will be removed') and the safety mechanism ('Requires confirm=true to execute'). This gives an agent the critical information that the tool is irreversible and requires confirmation, which is essential for safe invocation.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Every word serves a purpose: stating the action, scope, consequence, and prerequisite. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with one parameter, a full schema, and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it affects, and the confirmation requirement. It does not explain return values, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's detail about the warning behavior, this is not a significant gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool 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 schema already documents the confirm parameter with 100% coverage, describing both the required value and the warning behavior without it. The description only reiterates 'confirm=true' without adding new semantic detail. Thus the baseline of 3 applies, as the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds little beyond emphasis.

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 uses a specific verb ('flush') and resource ('entire custom block list'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that remove individual blocked domains (dns_remove_blocked) or flush other lists (dns_flush_allowed). It also clarifies scope with 'All manually blocked domains', leaving no ambiguity about what action is performed.

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 clearly states the action and scope ('Flush the entire custom block list'), making it evident when the tool should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives like dns_remove_blocked, but the context is sufficiently clear. The requirement for confirm=true is also stated, giving a clear precondition for use.

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