bing_plan_submit_feed

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, open-world, not idempotent, non-destructive). The description goes well beyond that: it states no change reaches Bing, only intent is recorded, quota may be read, and it gives a directive about what to report back to the user and what to return. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Short imperative sentences, front-loaded with purpose then routing then behavioral caveats. Every clause carries decision-relevant information; there is no filler or repetition.

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 two-param, no-output-schema planning tool, the description covers the entire lifecycle: what it records, what it does not do, what to return (plan id and CLI apply command), and what not to tell the user. Nothing an agent needs to call and report correctly is missing.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It obliquely maps 'sitemap URL' onto feed_url but never explains what site_url means or how the two relate (e.g., which site the feed belongs to, URL format expectations). With two required, undocumented parameters, the description 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Record a plan to submit a sitemap URL to Bing.' It immediately distinguishes itself from the two closest siblings by name (bing_sitemaps for listing, bing_plan_remove_feed for removal). An agent knows exactly what this tool does 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 sitemap added and a person must review it first') plus two named when-not alternatives, each paired with the sibling to call instead. Nothing about routing 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.