bing_plan_remove_country_region_settings

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

The description explicitly discloses that nothing is sent, only intent is recorded, and the change is not applied. It also specifies the correct agent response behavior, which goes well beyond the annotations and prevents the common mistake of reporting the change as applied.

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 compact and every sentence carries essential behavioral or procedural information. The most important caveat — this is only intent, nothing is applied — is front-loaded before the response guidance.

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?

It fully covers the non-applying behavior and the return instructions, but lacks any guidance on what should go inside the settings object or how site_url should be supplied. With no output schema and an undocumented nested parameter, the agent is left to guess at the request payload.

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 description provides no guidance about site_url or settings. The settings object is untyped and undocumented, so the agent has essentially no help constructing a valid request. The description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 frames this as a planning/preparation tool ('Prepare this change for human review') rather than an execution tool, and the tool name identifies the resource as country/region settings removal. It avoids tautology, though some resource specificity must be inferred from the tool name.

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?

It provides clear operational guidance: use it when a change should go through human review, and the agent should not tell the user the change was applied, but instead return the plan id and the CLI apply command. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended workflow is understandable.

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