bing_plan_add_page_preview_block

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

The description clearly discloses the key behavioral trait: it sends nothing, only records intent, and the change should not be reported as applied. This goes beyond annotations and prevents an agent from incorrectly telling the user the change was executed.

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 short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, the second clarifies safety, and the third tells the expect service behavior. Every sentence adds essential information with no fluff.

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, no parameter descriptions, and vague annotation palette, the description needs to carry full context. It misses definitions for why the parameters and says nothing about the 'page preview block' being changed, leaving an agent to guess essential details.

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 the description also fails to explain any of the three required parameters: site_url, url, or reason. There is no indication of what 'reason' means or how the integer values map, leaving the agent with no semantic clue.

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 what the tool does at a high level: it prepares a change for human review and records intent without applying it. However, it never mentions the specific resource involved, 'page preview block,' so an agent cannot tell it apart from other bing_plan_add_* siblings by reading the description alone.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bing_plan_remove_page_preview_block or bing_page_preview_blocks. It provides post-call behavior (return plan id and CLI command) but not the selection criteria or exclusion conditions.

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