bing_plan_add_country_region_settings

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

The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explicitly says that nothing is sent, intent is only recorded, the user must not be told the change was applied, and the response must include the plan id and CLI apply command. This meaningfully clarifies the non-applied, review-oriented behavior of the 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?

The description is compact, front-loads the main intent, and every sentence serves a purpose related to expected behavior and response handling. It loses a point because 'this change' is under-specified and the content is somewhat generic across the plan-add sibling tools.

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 provides a useful behavioral contract and return instruction, but it omits any information about the syntax of site_url or the shape/meaning of settings. Given no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is not enough for an agent to confidently construct a valid invocation for this 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?

The schema has two required parameters (site_url and settings) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain either parameter at all. The `settings` object, which may be complex, is left entirely unspecified, and the description only mentions the output value (plan id and CLI command), not the inputs.

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 says the tool 'records intent' and 'sends nothing', and it mentions 'this change', but never explicitly states that the change is adding country/region settings. This makes the purpose somewhat visible only through the tool name, and it does not distinguish it from the many other bing_plan_add_* siblings.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as bing_plan_remove_country_region_settings or bing_geo_settings. The description explains that the change should not be treated as applied, but it does not offer any contextual selection criteria to indicate the right situation for this plan tool.

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