bing_feed_remove

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly signals a destructive removal operation and a confirmation requirement, but does not state permissions needed, reversibility, or what happens if confirmation is absent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose and the confirmation condition.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition is too sparse. Although an output schema exists and return values need not be explained, the description still omits authentication needs, side effects, and parameter semantics.

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% for three parameters. The description only implies the 'confirm' behavior and mentions a feed, but provides no meaning for 'site' or 'feed_url', so it does not compensate for the missing schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: removing a registered feed, with the scope narrowed to same-origin feeds. It is distinguishable from sibling bing_feeds_list and bing_feed_details by the destructive action, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It says removal should happen 'only after explicit confirmation,' which is a usage condition, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like bing_feeds_list or bing_feed_details. The context is implied rather than stated.

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