bing_plan_submit_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, but the description adds critical context they don't: no change is sent to Bing, it only records intent, it may read the quota, and the agent must not tell the user the change was applied. It also specifies the correct success behavior (return plan id + CLI apply command).

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, then routing exclusions, then behavior and output guidance. Every sentence carries a distinct fact; nothing is redundant or restated from the annotations.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, five required parameters, and no output schema, the description should at minimum sketch the inputs, but it provides no parameter detail. Its excellent behavioral and routing coverage does not compensate for the missing input semantics on a non-trivial 5-param call.

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% across five required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and mostly fails. It mentions 'structured data' and quota reads in passing but never explains http_message, dynamic_serving, or the expected format of structured_data, leaving the agent to guess at required input shapes.

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 submit a page's content to Bing, including structured data.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest siblings (bing_plan_submit_url for ordinary URL submission, bing_content_submission_quota for reading quota), so an agent can route without opening another 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 both the positive trigger ('when the user wants the page body submitted and a person must review it first') and two explicit exclusions with named alternatives. Nothing about when to pick this over bing_plan_submit_url 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.