bing_plan_remove_query_parameter

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the plan/apply workflow: it 'sends no change to Bing and only records intent', 'may read your quota', and instructs the agent not to claim the change was applied but to return the plan id and CLI apply command. This resolves the ambiguity created by readOnlyHint=false, which alone would suggest a Bing-side mutation.

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 core action, then layers usage and when-not routing, then behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy despite the length.

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 plan-recording tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, quota side effect, and what to return to the user. The remaining gap is parameter format detail, which the 0%-coverage schema does not supply.

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 coverage is 0% with two required parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only implies that query_parameter is the parameter to delete and site_url identifies the site; it gives no format guidance (e.g., bare parameter name vs. full URL, site_url syntax), leaving both params under-specified.

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 ('Record a plan to remove a query parameter from the site's Bing configuration') and immediately delineates against siblings: adding (bing_plan_add_query_parameter) and listing (bing_query_parameters). An agent can distinguish it from the ~50 sibling tools 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when the user wants a URL parameter deleted and a person must review it first') plus two named when-not cases routing to the correct alternatives. 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.