update_command_blacklist

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the blacklist is updated and that commands/directories are blocked, but does not specify whether this operation is additive or replaces the existing blacklist, whether it requires special permissions, or what side effects occur. The mismatch between 'update' and 'add' leaves critical behavioral ambiguity.

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 short and front-loaded, stating the action and scope in one clear sentence. The addition of a Chinese translation is somewhat redundant for an AI agent but does not significantly harm conciseness or structure.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two optional parameters and an output schema, so explaining return values is unnecessary. However, the description omits crucial details about the update semantics (whether it replaces or appends), which is essential for safe usage. This gap makes the description incomplete despite the existing schema and sibling 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both 'commands' and 'directories' parameters, including examples. The description only restates that these items are added to the blacklist, offering no additional semantics beyond what the schema already conveys. Thus, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 updates the command and directory blacklist and specifies the action as adding blocked commands/directories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_command_blacklist (read) and execute_command (run). However, the name says 'update' while the description says 'add', creating slight ambiguity about whether it replaces or appends to the blacklist.

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 blocking commands/directories (e.g., add items to be blocked from execution/access), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It relies on the user to infer that this is the tool for modifying the blacklist.

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