bing_plan_remove_deep_link_block

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it sends no change to Bing and only records intent, it may consume quota, and it instructs the agent to return the plan id plus the CLI apply command rather than telling the user the change was applied. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that the readOnlyHint=false annotation alone would 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by usage conditions, alternatives, behavioral caveats, and a return-handling instruction. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler or repetition.

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 four-parameter plan-recording tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, what it does not do, its side effects (quota), and what to return to the caller. 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% and the description explains none of the four required parameters (site_url, market, search_url, deep_link_url). While the names are largely self-describing, there is no guidance on formats, market codes, or what search_url vs deep_link_url must contain — a real gap the description should have closed.

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 ('Record a plan to remove') plus the exact resource ('a deep-link block') and its effect ('so Bing may show that link again'). It also distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings by name, 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 ('user wants a deep link restored and a person must review it first') and two explicit when-not cases with the correct alternatives (bing_plan_add_deep_link_block for adding, bing_deep_link_blocks for listing). 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.