bing_plan_submit_site_move

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 and only intent is recorded, that it may read the quota, that human review is required, and exactly how the agent should behave (return the plan id and CLI apply command; do not claim the change was applied). This is rich, actionable behavioral disclosure for a mutation-planning tool.

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 usage, then behavior and return guidance. Sentences are dense and mostly earn their place, though the agent-directed instructions ('Do not tell the user...') add length beyond a pure tool description.

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 no output schema, the description correctly explains what to return (plan id + CLI apply command) and fully covers side effects and review flow. The only meaningful gap is parameter/input semantics for the required nested settings object.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and a nested 'settings' object, yet the description says nothing about what site_url should contain or what keys 'settings' expects. For a 2-parameter tool with an undocumented nested object, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 site move so Bing treats one address as moved to another.' It also names the sibling it is not (bing_site_moves), so an agent can distinguish it from the read-side tool 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 a migration submitted and a person must review it first') and explicit when-not-to-use with the alternative ('Do not use this to see moves already recorded; call bing_site_moves'). 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.