bing_plan_add_site

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

Adds critical context beyond annotations: 'This sends no change to Bing and only records intent; it may read your quota' and 'Do not tell the user the change was applied; return the plan id and the CLI apply command.' That clarifies the plan/apply separation and warns against a false success message, which annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) do not convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the trigger condition, exclusions, and behavioral caveat. Every sentence carries routing or safety value with zero padding.

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 one-param plan tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, exclusions, side-effect profile, and the expected follow-up (return plan id + apply command). Nothing an agent needs to call and handle the result correctly 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 0%, but the description says nothing about the site_url format (full URL vs host, scheme requirements, trailing slash). Baseline 3 applies for a 0-doc single-param tool where the description adds no parameter meaning.

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 add a site to the Bing Webmaster account'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling planning tools by naming bing_sites_list and bing_plan_verify_site as the wrong tools for adjacent intents. 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('user wants a property registered and a person must review it first') and two explicit when-NOT-to-use clauses that name the correct alternative for each excluded intent. This is the textbook pattern.

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