bing_plan_indexnow_submit

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

In spite of the misleading 'submit' in the name, the description incorporates the critical behavioral disclosure — no actual transmission occurs; it only records intent. This goes well beyond the annotations because the annotations only say the call is not read-only, while the text clarifies the real side-effect scope (a plan in a staging area) and delivers a precise agent directive (return the plan data). Missed depth: no explanation of what the CLI apply command would do or what permission/auth context is required for the eventual apply.

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 earning its place: one defining the tool's action, one stating the crucial non-effect, one delivering user-facing instructions on what to return and not to claim. The core distinction is front-loaded, 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?

For a planning tool with a small fixed schema, the description is adequate to avoid major invocation mistakes: the agent knows the output shape (plan id + CLI command) and the restraint. However, with no output schema and no parameter docs, the text leaves the argument semantics and the exact form of the return value under-resourced, so an agent can still call it with an incorrectly structured key or report the result in the wrong format.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the text contributes nothing to host, key, url_list, or key_location — for example, it leaves unclear whether key_location is an alternative to key or a separate requirement, or what URL format is expected. Because coverage is low, the description must compensate, and it does not; only the tool's name (IndexNow) hints at parameter meaning, which is insufficient.

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 specifies the verb clearly ("prepare") and its intended non-effect ("sends nothing and only records intent"), which smartly disambiguates the plan_* family from actual submission tools. The resource, however, is only referred to as "this change" — the agent must infer from the tool name that the subject is an IndexNow submission. It is a clear, functional purpose statement, just one step short of naming the exact resource.

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 workflow usage is explicit: prepare the change for human review, do not present it as applied, and instead return the plan id along with the CLI apply command. This is strong actionable direction on how to report and follow up. It does not, however, name an alternative tool of the "when not to use this" type, leaving the exclusion surface slightly implicit.

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