ip_ban_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's mutative nature ('Mutates live traffic rules — confirm with the user first'). It explains the resolution logic for the 'site' parameter and states the return format ('applied/failed split'), leaving no ambiguity about its 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 front-loaded with the primary action and then provides detailed parameter notes. While it is comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise. However, every sentence adds necessary information, and the structure is logical.

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?

Given no output schema, the description includes the return format (applied/failed split). It covers all key aspects: purpose, usage modes, parameter interactions, and behavioral caveats. The tool's complexity (7 parameters, two alternative methods) is well-addressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between 'ip_address', 'ip_addresses', and 'cidr', and how 'site' resolves to a WebACL. It provides context beyond the schema descriptions, such as the 'aliases' and 'alternative to config_name'.

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 specifies that the tool bans or unbans IP(s)/CIDR(s) via either a named WAF/SecurityGroup/NACL config or a site's WebACL. It uses specific verbs ('Ban or unban') and identifies the resource types, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'block_ip' by detailing the mechanism.

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 explicitly instructs to confirm with the user before use due to live traffic mutation. It outlines two primary methods (config_name vs site) and accepts single or bulk inputs, providing context on when to use each. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare to alternatives beyond mentioning 'ip_ban_list_configs'.

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