bing_plan_add_query_parameter

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses this sends no change to Bing, only records intent, may consume quota, and tells the agent not to claim the change was applied but to return the plan id and CLI apply command. That is unusually rich behavioral context for a non-readOnly tool.

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, then exclusions, then behavior and output handling. No sentence is filler; each adds a distinct constraint.

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, but the description compensates by describing what to return (plan id and CLI apply command) and explicitly warning the agent not to report the change as applied. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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% for the two required parameters (site_url, query_parameter), so the schema supplies no semantics. The description only implies what a query parameter is and never clarifies formats (e.g., whether to include the leading '?', full URL vs host) — a real gap when the schema is silent.

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 add a query parameter Bing should know about for the site.' This clearly separates it from the remove/enable-disable variants among its many siblings.

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 ('when the user wants a URL parameter registered and a person must review it first') plus two explicit when-not-to-use rules naming the exact alternative tools (bing_query_parameters, bing_plan_enable_disable_query_parameter).

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