add_website_exclusions

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint: false annotation, the description provides rich behavioral details: read-modify-write semantics, URL stripping, exclusion of Microsoft sites, cap of ~2500 sites, and partial error returns. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each adding distinct information. Front-loaded with purpose, then additive behavior, then formatting details, then constraints/error handling. No fluff.

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 2 simple parameters and an output schema (present but not shown), the description covers behavior, constraints, error handling, and sibling tool for reading. It is self-contained and leaves no major gaps for a typical use case.

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 100% with basic descriptions, but the description adds significant value by specifying formats (bare domains, paths, mobile-app ids) and that leading http(s):// is stripped. This helps the agent format inputs correctly.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'block' and the resource 'websites/mobile-app ids on a campaign'. Distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning additive nature and referencing get_website_exclusions for viewing.

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?

Explicitly states the additive behavior (never clobbers), constraints (Microsoft sites cannot be excluded, 2500-site cap), and error handling (partial_errors). Mentions viewing with get_website_exclusions but does not explicitly compare to remove_website_exclusions or state when not to use.

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