bing_plan_remove_site

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that no change is sent to Bing, that it only records intent, that it may read quota, and that the agent must not claim the change was applied but instead return the plan id and CLI apply command. The readOnlyHint=false is clarified rather than contradicted, since the tool writes local plan state.

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 the purpose, then tightly ordered use/exclusion/behavior sentences. Five sentences is a bit dense, but each carries distinct, non-redundant information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what to return (plan id and CLI apply command) and warns about the quota side effect, so an agent has everything needed to call and follow up 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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description refers to 'a site' without specifying the expected site_url format (full URL vs. domain, trailing slash, etc.). The single param is near self-documenting, so this is minimally adequate but does not 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 site from the Bing Webmaster account'), making the deferred-plan nature explicit. It distinguishes itself from write siblings and from the read-only listing tool without requiring the 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 an explicit use condition ('when the user wants a property removed and a person must review it first') and two named exclusions with the alternative to call instead (bing_plan_add_blocked_url for one URL, bing_sites_list for viewing). 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.