bing_plan_remove_site_role

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that no change is sent to Bing, that only intent is recorded, that quota may be read, and that the caller must return the plan id and a CLI apply command rather than telling the user the change was applied. That is precisely the post-call behavioral contract an agent needs and cannot infer from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint alone.

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 core action, then usage, exclusions, behavioral caveats, and the required response handling, in that order. Every sentence carries distinct information; none is redundant with the annotations or schema.

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?

Behaviorally the definition is thorough and there is no output schema to explain, so return-value concerns are covered. The gap is the completely undocumented nested site_role parameter, which the description never unpacks despite the schema offering no help.

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 one parameter is a nested object (site_role) with no structure disclosed anywhere. The prose implies the meaning of site_url and site_role at a high level ('one delegated role from a Bing Webmaster site'), but gives no identifier format, no role vocabulary, and no detail on the nested object's fields, so it 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Record a plan to remove one delegated role from a Bing Webmaster site.' It immediately distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings by naming them (bing_plan_add_site_roles for granting, bing_site_roles for listing), so an agent can separate it from the crowded bing_plan_* family without opening a 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 access revoked and a person must review it first') plus two explicit when-not-to-use clauses with the correct alternative tool named for each. This is about as complete as routing guidance gets.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.