bing_plan_enable_disable_query_parameter

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

Annotations declare the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it sends no change to Bing, only records intent, may consume quota, and the agent must not claim the change was applied but instead return the plan id plus a CLI apply command. This is exactly the contextual disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose followed by exclusions and then behavioral warnings; every sentence earns its place. It is dense with four distinct directives, which is slightly heavy but justified for a plan/apply workflow.

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 tells the agent what to do on return (return the plan id and CLI apply command). Combined with plan semantics and quota warning, the agent has everything needed to call and report 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% for three required parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It implies the target (site, query parameter, enable/disable) through its purpose statement but never documents site_url format, query_parameter syntax, or the enable-vs-disable meaning of is_enabled.

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+scope: 'Record a plan to enable or disable a query parameter Bing already has for the site.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from two named siblings (bing_plan_add_query_parameter and bing_query_parameters), 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('when the user wants a parameter toggled and a person must review it first') and two when-not-to-use clauses, each pointing at the correct alternative tool. 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.