dns_remove_allowed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the domain will no longer bypass block lists, indicating a state change. However, it does not mention idempotency, error handling, reversibility, or whether the domain must currently exist in the allow list, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no trivial or redundant information. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's function and effect.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the purpose and effect clearly. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and what will happen. However, the lack of usage guidance and edge-case behavior keeps it from being fully comprehensive.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'domain' parameter, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 applies when schema coverage is high and the description does not compensate with extra detail.

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 identifies the action as removing a domain from the allow list and specifies the consequence (the domain will no longer bypass block lists). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_remove_blocked, which operates on a different list.

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 when one wants to undo an allow-list operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites. There is no exclusions or contrast with sibling tools, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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