bing_plan_remove_blocked_url

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it says the tool sends nothing, only records intent, and instructs the agent not to claim the change was applied. This clarifies the non-destructive planning behavior and the expected response, which the annotations alone do not convey.

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 adding meaningful information: prepare for review, send nothing, return the plan id and CLI command. 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 covers the behavioral workflow and user-facing output, but it does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, nested object structure, or output schema. For an invocation-heavy operation where both parameters are required and one is an unspecified object, this is incomplete.

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%, so the full burden falls on the description. It mentions neither site_url nor blocked_url, and blocked_url is an opaque object type with no properties defined, so the agent has no way to know what shape to provide.

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 makes it clear this tool prepares a change for human review rather than applying it, but it refers to 'this change' without explicitly naming the resource being removed (a blocked URL). The actual verb and resource are mostly recoverable from the tool name, and the description does not distinguish it from the 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?

'Do not tell the user the change was applied; return the plan id and CLI apply command' implies that this is a planning-only tool used ahead of human approval. It gives useful context for when to use it, but it does not explicitly call out when not to use it or name direct alternatives.

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