bing_plan_add_deep_link_block

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it declares this 'sends no change to Bing and only records intent', warns it 'may read your quota', and instructs the agent not to claim the change was applied but to return the plan id and CLI apply command. This is critical context the openWorld/readOnly/destructive hints cannot convey on their own.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then usage rules and alternatives, then agent instructions; almost every sentence is load-bearing. The 'do not tell the user.../return the plan id' sentence is directive rather than descriptive but earns its place by preventing a false success report.

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?

Covers purpose, when/when-not, alternatives, and the key planning semantics plus follow-up guidance for a mutation-adjacent tool with no output schema. The only meaningful gap is that the description never characterizes the four required parameters.

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% for four required parameters, so the description must carry the full explanatory burden. It only implicitly maps three of them (deep link, search result, market) and never mentions site_url or gives any format/syntax guidance, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Record a plan to block one deep link Bing shows under a search result in a market'), and immediately distinguishes this 'plan' tool from the sibling that actually lists blocks. An agent can tell it apart from bing_deep_link_blocks and bing_plan_remove_deep_link_block without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('user wants a deep link hidden and a person must review the block first') plus two explicit when-not cases naming the exact alternative tool for each (listing -> bing_deep_link_blocks, removal -> bing_plan_remove_deep_link_block). Nothing is left to inference.

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