bing_plan_add_site

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

The description adds strong behavioral context beyond the annotations: it sends nothing, only records intent, must not be reported as applied, and returns a plan id plus CLI apply command. This materially clarifies what the tool actually does and how the agent should respond.

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?

Two economical sentences carry the core purpose, a key behavioral distinction, and the required response behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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?

Given the single simple parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what happens, what does not happen, what to return, and what not to claim. Nothing important is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 does not explain site_url at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation with any format, provenance, or usage details.

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 stages a change for human review rather than executing it, and 'records intent' pins down the action. It does not explicitly name 'site' as the resource, but the tool name and required site_url parameter make the resource evident.

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 clear context: use this tool when a change should be prepared for human review and not applied yet. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when to choose them, but the distinction between recording intent and applying is clear.

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