bing_plan_save_crawl_settings

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 the call only records intent, that it may consume quota, and that the caller must not report the change as applied. These are consequential behavioral facts the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags do not convey on their own.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage condition, then exclusion, then behavioral caveats. Every sentence carries 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?

Covers the workflow (plan id plus CLI apply command as the return) and the key behavioral nuance for a plan tool. The remaining gap is the unexplained nested crawl_settings structure, which matters for correctness but is not addressed anywhere.

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 the description never mentions site_url or crawl_settings directly. The nested crawl_settings object is completely undocumented in both schema and description, so the agent gets no field-level guidance for the most complex parameter; the phrasing only loosely implies the two params.

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 replace the site's crawl settings in Bing') and implicitly scopes it as an intent-recording tool rather than a live mutation. An agent can distinguish it from bing_crawl_settings and the other bing_plan_* siblings without opening 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 when-to-use ('the user wants crawl settings changed and a person must review them first'), an explicit when-not ('Do not use this to read the current settings'), and names the alternative tool (bing_crawl_settings). Nothing is left to inference about selection.

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