add_connected_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation adds a page and raises BingWebmasterError on failure, but doesn't mention whether the operation is idempotent, whether it requires prior site verification, or what happens if the page is already connected. The error mention is useful but minimal.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Raises sections are standard and efficient. No wasted words, though the Raises section is somewhat generic.

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 details, the description is thin. It doesn't explain return values, idempotency, prerequisites, or failure modes beyond a generic exception. An agent would need to infer a lot about how to call this correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists both parameters with brief definitions ('The URL of your site', 'The URL of the page to be connected'), which adds some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify URL formats, whether master_url must be on the same domain, or any constraints.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a page which has a link to your website.' This clearly identifies the action and target. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like add_deep_link_block or add_page_preview_block, but the resource (connected page) is distinct enough.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like verifying the site first, or contrast with get_connected_pages or other add tools. The context is implied by the name and description but not explicit.

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