submit_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that a BingWebmasterError is raised on failure, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it overwrites existing content, whether it requires special permissions, or what the response contains. 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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The parameter list is organized and the dynamic_serving mapping is clearly formatted. The Raises section adds useful error information. It is slightly verbose with the full parameter list repeated from the schema, but overall it earns its place.

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?

The tool has 5 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists but the description does not explain return values. The description covers the action, parameters, and error behavior, but lacks guidance on when to use it, what the response looks like, and any side effects. For a content submission tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not complete.

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 description must compensate. It does add meaning for dynamic_serving by listing the enum-like mapping (0-5 with device names), which is valuable. However, http_message and structured_data are only described as 'base64 encoded' with no further context on format or required structure, and site_url/url are only given examples. The description partially compensates but leaves several parameters under-explained.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Submit content for a specific URL.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_url and submit_feed, which submit URLs or feeds rather than content payloads. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it loses a point for not naming the differentiation.

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 implies usage by listing required parameters and the action, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like submit_url or submit_feed. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, so an agent must infer that this is for content submission rather than URL-only submission.

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