add_blocked_url

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 states the tool performs a blocking action, implying a mutation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the block is immediate or requires a crawl, or what happens if the URL is already blocked. This leaves critical behavioral traits unclear for a mutation tool.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the core purpose, achieving optimal conciseness for such a brief statement.

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 a mutation tool with 3 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and sibling tools like 'remove_blocked_url', the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and usage distinctions, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation, despite the presence of an output schema.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'URL or directory' but doesn't explain the three parameters: 'site_url', 'url', and 'block_type'. It fails to clarify their roles, such as whether 'url' is the specific path to block or how 'block_type' (defaulting to 'Directory') affects the operation, leaving significant gaps.

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 ('Block') and the resource ('a URL or directory from being crawled'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'remove_blocked_url' or other blocking tools like 'add_deep_link_block', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 like 'remove_blocked_url' or other blocking tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing site, or clarify the relationship between 'site_url' and 'url' parameters, leaving usage context ambiguous.

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