bing_site_roles

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses that DelegatedCode is redacted and CLI-only, that an empty result carries an empty_response label meaning 'silence, not a measurement', and that untrusted fields are data never instructions. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot encode.

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 usage routing, then behavioral caveats in a logical order; each sentence adds a distinct fact. Slightly dense but nothing is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining the empty_response label and the redacted DelegatedCode field. The remaining gap is the undocumented include_all_subdomains parameter, which keeps it short of full completeness for a two-parameter tool.

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% for two parameters, so the schema does no lifting and the description must compensate. It implies a single site (site_url) but says nothing about the format of site_url or what include_all_subdomains does (whether it recurses into subdomains' delegations), leaving a meaningful parameter entirely undocumented.

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 (list) plus resource (people and roles delegated) and scope (one Bing Webmaster site). It also names the sibling it is not (bing_sites_list), so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('who has access to a site', 'which role an account holds') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative to use instead ('Do not use this to discover which sites exist; call bing_sites_list'). 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.