bing_plan_add_blocked_url

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses that no change is sent to Bing, that this only records intent pending human review, that it may consume quota, that the agent must not tell the user the change was applied, and what to return (plan id plus CLI apply command). That is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then mode semantics, then routing exclusions, then side-effect/return warnings. Every sentence carries unique information; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 plan-recording tool with no output schema and an undeclared nested object, the description supplies the missing workflow context: it is a two-step plan/apply flow with human review, and the agent should return the plan id plus apply command. Nothing needed for correct invocation or follow-up is absent.

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 0% and blocked_url is an unstructured nested object, so the description carries the burden for parameters. It does explain the RequestType values (1=FullRemoval, 0=CacheOnly), which maps to the nested object's key fields, but it never explains site_url or the accepted shape/keys of blocked_url. Partial compensation only.

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 ('Record a plan to block one URL in Bing') and immediately distinguishes the two modes via RequestType 1 (FullRemoval) vs RequestType 0 (CacheOnly). An agent can distinguish this from siblings such as bing_blocked_urls and bing_plan_remove_blocked_url without opening any schema.

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 names the triggering condition ('when the user asks to hide a URL and a person must review the block first') and two explicit exclusions with the correct alternatives: listing goes to bing_blocked_urls, lifting goes to bing_plan_remove_blocked_url. This is explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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