add_blocked_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. For a mutation tool it only offers a minimal Raises clause (BingWebmasterError on failure) and omits what happens on success, reversibility, or permission requirements. With zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 docstring format front-loads a one-line purpose followed by an informative Args list and a compact Raises note. It is well-structured with no filler; the only low-value element is the minimal Raises clause, but it does not bloat the description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Parameters are thoroughly covered, but the description omits usage context and behavioral detail that a write operation with no annotations should supply, leaving the agent without guidance on when to call it.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates by documenting all 5 parameters, including the enum semantics (Page or Directory for entity_type, CacheOnly or FullRemoval for request_type) and the date default (minimum datetime). This adds meaning the schema itself does not provide.

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?

"Add a blocked URL to a site" states a specific verb and resource, and the parameter list clarifies the domain (Bing Webmaster URL blocking). It is distinguishable from sibling tools remove_blocked_url and get_blocked_urls by its operation, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description is purely declarative and leaves the agent to infer when blocking a URL is appropriate versus using remove_blocked_url.

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