add_query_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that a BingWebmasterError is raised if the parameter cannot be added, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, authorization needs, or how the normalization parameter is applied.

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 opening sentence is a concise, front-loaded description. The Args and Raises sections add useful information without marketing fluff. The format is slightly verbose due to headings and blank lines, but it remains short and scannable.

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?

This is a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description does not explain prerequisites, effects on existing normalization rules, idempotency, or what happens when the parameter already exists. It only names the inputs and a generic failure condition, so an agent lacks enough context to predict the tool's behavior.

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 Args section largely restates the parameter names: 'site_url: The URL of the site' and 'query_parameter: The query parameter to add.' It adds almost no meaning beyond the input schema, which already requires those values and constrains query_parameter with a regex pattern. There is no example, no format clarification, and no relation to URL normalization behavior.

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 opens with a clear verb and object: 'Add a URL normalization parameter for a site.' This states exactly what the tool does and is specific enough to distinguish it from obvious siblings like remove_query_parameter or get_query_parameters. It does not explicitly contrast with other parameter-related tools such as enable_disable_query_parameter, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like enable_disable_query_parameter or remove_query_parameter. The description provides no context about prerequisites, such as whether the site must already exist or be verified, and does not mention any exclusions.

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