enable_disable_query_parameter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutating operation ('enable or disable') and mentions a Raises clause for BingWebmasterError on failure. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, idempotency, permissions, or prerequisites. 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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a single, front-loaded purpose sentence, then lists the arguments with clear definitions, and ends with a raises clause. There is no redundant or verbose text; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with three primitive parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core action, arguments, and error condition. However, it lacks usage context (when to prefer this over siblings), does not explain the concept of 'URL normalization parameter', and omits any prerequisites like site verification. This is adequate but not complete given the wide range of sibling tools.

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 defines each argument: site_url as 'The URL of the site', query_parameter as 'The query parameter to enable/disable', and is_enabled as 'True to enable, False to disable'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types and titles, though it could include format hints or domain-specific explanations (e.g., what qualifies as a query parameter).

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 clearly states the action: 'Enable or disable a URL normalization parameter for a site.' This specifies the verb (enable/disable), the resource (URL normalization parameter), and the scope (for a site). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_query_parameter, remove_query_parameter, and get_query_parameters by focusing on toggling state rather than creation, removal, or retrieval.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used for existing parameters or that add/remove are for adding/removing. There are no exclusions or explicit context for selecting this over siblings like get_query_parameters or add_query_parameter.

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