block_multiple_domains

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Block') which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether the blocks are immediate or require confirmation, if there are rate limits, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies system state.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and is completely front-loaded with the essential information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'blocking' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, error conditions, or how this interacts with other blocking mechanisms in the system. The context signals show this is a state-changing operation that needs more behavioral 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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('domains' and 'description') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 action ('Block') and resource ('multiple domains'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'block_domain' by specifying 'multiple domains at once', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other related tools like 'apply_blocklist_category' or 'toggle_blocklist_entry'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'block_domain' (for single domains) or 'apply_blocklist_category' (for category-based blocking). The description implies batch processing but lacks explicit context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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