bing_plan_add_connected_page

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

The description explicitly discloses the essential behavior: it sends nothing, records only intent, must not be described to the user as an applied change, and returns a plan ID plus CLI apply command. This goes beyond the annotations and prevents a realistic agent mistake.

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?

Three short sentences deliver purpose, behavioral caveat, and output/reporting instruction with no filler. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation and response handling.

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?

The description covers the tool's plan semantics, non-application, and return behavior. It is slightly incomplete because the parameter roles and exact output shape are not described, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain site_url or master_url at all. Their names provide only weak hints, and the tool description does not clarify which URL is the connected page and which is the master target, leaving an agent to infer the relationship.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's role—planning 'this change' as an intent-recording plan for human review—rather than applying it, and the tool name identifies the target resource as a connected page. It does not explicitly differentiate this from other bing_plan_add_* siblings in the description.

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?

Strong context is provided: 'This sends nothing and only records intent' and returning the CLI apply command indicate the tool is for the plan/review path rather than for applying changes. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for appropriate routing.

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