bing_plan_add_page_preview_block

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

Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it clarifies the plan pattern ('sends no change to Bing and only records intent'), warns of a quota read, and instructs the agent not to claim the change was applied and to return the plan id plus the CLI apply command. This is exactly the intent-vs-application distinction an agent needs.

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-loads the purpose, then usage, then exclusions, then behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds distinct value; nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description explicitly states what to return (plan id and CLI apply command). Combined with the intent-vs-apply clarification and quota note, the agent has everything needed to call and report on this tool correctly.

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 description only implies the 'url' parameter via 'one URL'. It gives no meaning for 'site_url' and, more importantly, no explanation of the integer 'reason' parameter (presumably a code) despite it being required. With 3 required params at 0% coverage, the description does not compensate.

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+resource: 'Record a plan to block the page preview Bing shows for one URL.' It actively distinguishes itself from two named siblings (bing_page_preview_blocks, bing_plan_add_blocked_url), so an agent can route correctly 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when the user wants a preview suppressed and a person must review it first') plus two explicit do-not-use cases naming the correct alternative tool for each. The condition that selects this tool over its alternatives is fully stated.

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