bing_plan_add_country_region_settings

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

Annotations mark this as a non-readonly, non-destructive, open-world operation, but the description adds far more: it sends no change to Bing, only records intent, may consume quota, the user must not be told the change was applied, and the caller should return the plan id plus the CLI apply command. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and workflow disclosure annotations cannot express.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then behavioral caveats, and every sentence is directive rather than filler. It is slightly long due to three separate 'Do not' clauses, but each carries distinct, useful information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly tells the agent what to return (plan id and CLI apply command) and clarifies the non-mutating nature of the call. The remaining gap is the undocumented nested settings object, which leaves the agent unsure how to construct the geotargeting rule payload.

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% and the nested 'settings' object is entirely undocumented. The description implies site_url is the target URL and that settings carries a country/region targeting rule, which gives some semantic grounding, but it provides no format for the URL or structure/keys for the nested settings object, so it only partially compensates.

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 add a country or region targeting rule for a URL in Bing.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming bing_geo_settings and bing_plan_remove_country_region_settings as not-this-tool. An agent can identify this as the plan-create variant for geotargeting rules 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 gives explicit positive conditions ('when the user wants a geotargeting rule and a person must review it first') and two explicit exclusions with the sibling to call instead for read and delete. Alternatives and selection conditions are fully specified.

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