bing_plan_remove_feed

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

Annotations exist but only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds non-obvious operational context the annotations cannot convey: it sends no change to Bing (two-phase plan/apply model), it may read your quota, and the agent must not claim the change was applied but return the plan id and CLI apply command. This is exactly the value-add the annotations cannot provide, and it is self-consistent with readOnlyHint=false (a local plan record is written).

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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by routing guidance and then behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so precisely ('return the plan id and the CLI apply command'). Combined with the two-phase workflow explanation, an agent has everything needed to call and report the tool 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 the two parameters, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps 'sitemap URL' to feed_url but never names feed_url or site_url or their expected format, and site_url is entirely unaddressed. With only two simple, understandably-named required params this is adequate but leaves real format ambiguity.

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 a sitemap URL from Bing.' It goes further by naming the sibling it is not (bing_plan_submit_feed for adding) and the sibling for reading status (bing_sitemap_details), so it is unmistakable among the ~40 bing_plan_* tools.

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 sitemap removed and a person must review it first') and two explicit when-not-to-use clauses with the exact alternative tool to call instead. 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.