add_deep_link_block

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 only mentions that a BingWebmasterError may be raised, which is minor. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool 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 description is short and avoids fluff, but it is under-specified. The docstring-style structure with Args and Raises is reasonable, but it lacks front-loaded context or any explanation of the tool's purpose beyond the first line. It is not conciseness that aids the agent; it is just too sparse.

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 the tool has four required parameters, no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no explanation of the return value or behavior, the description is highly incomplete. An agent cannot correctly construct a call without guessing at the meaning of the parameters. The presence of an output schema is not mentioned, and no indication of what the response contains is given.

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 schema lists four string parameters with no descriptions, and the description merely repeats their names without adding meaning. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate but does not explain the purpose, format, or constraints of site_url, market, search_url, or deep_link_url.

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 says 'Add a deep link block,' which is a clear verb+resource, but it does not explain what a deep link block is or what the action entails. It does not differentiate from siblings like add_page_preview_block or remove_deep_link_block. It is not a tautology, but it is too vague to guide an agent that lacks domain-specific knowledge.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this tool is for adding deep link blocks, but there is no comparison to remove_deep_link_block or other add tools.

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