bing_plan_remove_page_preview_block

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the crucial two-phase workflow semantics: no change is sent to Bing, it only records intent, it may read quota, and the agent must not tell the user the change was applied but instead return the plan id and CLI apply command. That is behavior the annotations cannot 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and outcome, then usage, then prohibitions, then behavioral caveats and the required output instruction. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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?

There is no output schema, and the description explicitly covers the return value (plan id plus the CLI apply command) and the non-application caveat. Combined with the routing guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and report on this 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 two required parameters (site_url, url), so the schema does no explanatory work. The description never mentions either parameter, their expected format, or how site_url relates to url, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 page-preview block') plus the outcome ('so Bing may show a preview again'). It explicitly separates itself from the add sibling and the list sibling, so an agent can route 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 preview restored and a person must review it first') and two when-not-to-use clauses naming the exact alternative tools (bing_plan_add_page_preview_block, bing_page_preview_blocks). 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.