unblock_domain

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 ('Remove') but doesn't clarify whether this requires admin permissions, if the change is immediate or requires a restart, what happens if the domain isn't blocked, or if there are rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and understandable. 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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) and usage guidance. The high schema coverage helps, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotations and output information.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'domain' parameter clearly documented as 'Domain to unblock'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples (e.g., 'example.com') or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Remove') and target resource ('domain from the DNS blocklist'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'toggle_blocklist_entry' or 'apply_blocklist_category', but the verb 'Remove' suggests a specific unblocking action rather than toggling or applying categories.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'toggle_blocklist_entry' or 'block_domain'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the domain must be currently blocked), exclusions, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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