remove_blocked_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Remove,' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the change is reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the URL isn't in the blocked list. 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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It immediately conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, which is efficient for an agent's understanding.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, usage context, behavioral implications, or reference the output schema. While an output schema exists, the description should still provide more context to guide effective tool invocation.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about what 'site_url' and 'url' represent, their formats, or their relationship. The description mentions 'URL' but doesn't clarify which parameter corresponds to it or if both are needed for different contexts. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 ('Remove') and the resource ('a URL from the blocked list'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_blocked_url' by specifying removal rather than addition. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'blocked list' refers to in context, leaving some ambiguity about the domain.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the URL must already be blocked), conditions for use, or related tools like 'get_blocked_urls' for checking existing blocked URLs first. Without such context, the agent lacks clear usage instructions.

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