submit_site_move

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 does disclose that a BingWebmasterError is raised on failure, but it does not reveal the mutating nature of a site move, potential side effects, or any ownership/authorization requirements. This is a significant transparency gap for a write operation.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clean Args/Raises structure. Every line is brief, though some content is not especially informative.

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 mutation tool with a complex nested settings object and opaque enum values, the description is incomplete. An agent would need the schema to discover required fields, and even then the enum semantics are unexplained. The Raises clause adds a small amount of context but does not fill the gap.

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 needed to compensate, but it mostly restates the parameter names: 'The URL of the site' and 'The site move settings containing move configuration' add little beyond the schema titles. It fails to document the required fields inside SiteMoveSettings or the meaning of the numeric MoveType/MoveScope enums.

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 a site move request.' This distinguishes it from read-style siblings like get_site_moves, though it does not explain any context beyond the bare operation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what prerequisites exist (e.g., site verification, valid move scope). Usage is only implied by the name and verb, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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