bing_plan_enable_disable_query_parameter

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

The description very clearly discloses the crucial behaviors beyond the annotations: it sends nothing, records intent only, does not actually apply the change, and immediately instructs the agent to return the plan id and CLI apply command rather than telling the user the change was applied. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 each earn their place: the first states the action, the second clarifies the lack of side effects, and the third tells the agent how to respond. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 is highly useful for a plan tool with no output schema: it defines the action, the side-effect profile, and the expected response content. It is not fully complete because the three parameters are left semantically unspecified, but their names are self-explanatory enough for many use cases.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 0% and the description gives no per-parameter guidance for site_url, query_parameter, or is_enabled. The agent gets no explanation of what values are valid, what 'is_enabled: true' semantically means, or how query_parameter should be formatted. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions at all.

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 that this tool prepares a change for human review rather than applying it, which is a concrete and useful purpose. However, it does not explicitly name the resource being changed (query parameter) or scope the action beyond 'this change', relying on the tool name and parameters for specificity and offering no differentiation from sibling plan tools.

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 phrase 'Prepare this change for human review' and 'This sends nothing and only records intent' imply when to use the tool: when a change should be staged instead of applied immediately. Still, no explicit exclusions or alternative sibling tools are named, so use-vs-alternative judgment is largely left to the agent.

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