dns_temp_disable_blocking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior: the temporary disable state and automatic re-enablement after the timer. It adds context beyond the name but omits details like scope (all blocking vs. specific domains) and any side effects.

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 sentences, zero waste. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and includes the critical auto-re-enable behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 the purpose, duration, and automatic re-enablement. It is nearly complete, though it could further clarify the scope (global vs. specific domain) and what happens to existing blocked domains during the window.

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% since the single parameter 'minutes' is described with a default. The description reinforces the meaning ('specified number of minutes', 'timer expires') but does not add extra constraints like min/max or units beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific action: temporarily disabling domain blocking with an auto re-enable timer. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the temporary nature distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_remove_blocked (permanent) and dns_block_domain (blocking).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when you need a temporary override that auto-reverts) without explicit exclusions. It implies a scenario but does not name alternatives, so it doesn't reach the level of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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