add_connected_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that a BingWebmasterError is raised if the page cannot be connected, but it does not specify whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the connection already exists, or any side effects. The agent is left uninformed about critical behavioral traits beyond the error case.

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, with a one-line purpose followed by clear parameter and error documentation. The structure is logical, though the Args and Raises sections could be integrated more naturally. No superfluous text is present.

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 existence of an output schema (so return values are covered) and the parameter count, the description covers purpose and two of three parameters. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, leaving the tool only partially documented. More context on when to use and what to expect would improve completeness.

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 description provides explicit explanations for site_url and master_url in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, the 'self' parameter is left undocumented. With 3 params and 2 described, the coverage is partial but helpful.

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 ('Add a page') and the resource ('which has a link to your website'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_site (which adds a site) and get_connected_pages (which retrieves). The verb 'add' and resource 'connected page' are specific and unambiguous.

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. For example, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the site must already exist), nor does it contrast with similar tools like add_site or get_connected_pages. The absence of usage context leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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