bing_plan_remove_blocked_url

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it sends no change to Bing and only records intent, it may consume quota, and it instructs the agent not to claim the change was applied but to return the plan id and CLI apply command. That is exactly the kind of plan-vs-apply semantic an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint alone.

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 action and effect, then the usage rules and behavioral caveats; nearly every sentence earns its place. It is dense with imperatives but not padded, so it reads efficiently.

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 usefully states what to return (plan id and CLI apply command) plus the plan-vs-real-change distinction. The only material gap is the unexplored parameter shape, which matters given the nested required object.

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 never mentions site_url or the nested blocked_url object at all. With an undocumented required nested object, the description does not compensate for the coverage gap, leaving the agent to guess the expected shape of blocked_url.

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 remove one URL block request') and clarifies the intended effect (Bing may show the URL or its cached copy again). It also names the sibling tools for the adjacent operations, so an agent can distinguish it from bing_plan_add_blocked_url and bing_blocked_urls 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?

Explicitly gives the when ('user asks to unblock a URL and a person must review it first') and two when-nots with the correct alternatives (add a block -> bing_plan_add_blocked_url; see current list -> bing_blocked_urls). Nothing about tool selection 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.