Forbidden Chain

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

The description discloses key behaviours: it performs network requests (HEAD and bypass techniques), files findings per bypass, and records coverage evidence. It also flags the action as aggressive and requiring approval. However, it does not mention specific rate limits, permissions, or potential side effects on target systems, so transparency is good but not exhaustive.

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, starting with a bracketed warning, then process, then input guidance, and ending with a rationale. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the final rhetorical sentence could be trimmed without losing meaning. Overall, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description provides enough to invoke the tool: input format, limits, and expected behavior. It does not describe the output schema or possible error conditions, but given that the tool likely returns findings and coverage data, the missing output details are a minor gap. The overall context is sufficient for a competent agent.

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?

All three parameters are explained: 'urls' is described as 'the estate's live URLs' in a comma/newline-joined string or array, 'max_candidates' is the limit for pre-checked URLs, and 'max_bypass' limits how many URLs get the bypass treatment. The description gives functional meaning to each, exceeding the 0% schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Auto-chain 403 bypass across a list of URLs.' It also details the process (pre-check with HEAD, keep real 403s, run bypass techniques) and the outcome (files findings or records coverage). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 includes context like 'requires human approval' and 'AGGRESSIVE', which hints at when to use it cautiously, but it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools such as forbidden_bypass or forbidden_candidates. It also lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternative approaches, leaving the decision partly to the agent's inference.

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