remove_deep_link_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one useful behavioral detail: it raises BingWebmasterError if the block cannot be removed. However, it does not disclose whether removal is permanent, what authorization is required, or any side effects, so the transparency is partial.

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, organized into Args and Raises sections, and avoids unnecessary prose. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though the brevity contributes to some under-specification that is penalized elsewhere.

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 mutating tool with four required parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves too much unstated. It does not explain the success/return behavior, prerequisite conditions, parameter formats, or how this relates to get/add_deep_link_block, making it incomplete for an agent to call confidently.

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, but it mostly restates the parameter names: 'site_url: The URL of the site' and 'search_url: The search URL' add little meaning. Only 'deep_link_url: The deep link URL to unblock' and 'market: The market code' provide slight extra context, with no format or acceptable-value details.

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 opening phrase 'Remove a deep link block' is a specific verb+resource statement, and the Args section clarifies that the deep_link_url is the URL to unblock. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_deep_link_block, get_deep_link_blocks, and update_deep_link by the removal action alone.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the block existing or being discoverable via get_deep_link_blocks. The only contextual signal is the 'to unblock' wording, which implies but does not state the intended workflow.

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