remove_blocked_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a BingWebmasterError is raised if the URL cannot be unblocked, which is useful. However, it does not mention the destructive nature explicitly, success behavior, or any side effects beyond removal. It is partially transparent but lacks depth.

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: a one-line purpose, a clear argument list, and a Raises section. It is front-loaded and each element earns its place without redundancy.

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 there is an output schema (not shown) and the tool is relatively simple, the description covers the arguments and errors. However, it does not explain the practical differences between CacheOnly and FullRemoval, nor any prerequisites like site verification. For correct invocation, an agent might need more context, so completeness is moderate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does: site_url and blocked_url are straightforward, and entity_type and request_type are given labels (Page/Directory, CacheOnly/FullRemoval) that the schema lacks (only integer enums). date is described but its role is ambiguous. This meaningfully adds to the schema, though not exhaustively.

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 tool's purpose: 'Remove a blocked URL from a site.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_blocked_url and get_blocked_urls. The list of arguments further clarifies the operation.

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 implies usage (remove instead of add), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the URL must already be blocked, or when to use a different removal method. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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