bing_plan_remove_deep_link_block

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

The description clearly discloses a critical behavioral trait that annotations do not capture: the tool sends nothing, only records intent, and must not be presented as an applied change. This is very helpful agent-facing guidance and strongly prevents false completion claims.

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 concise sentences with no filler. Each sentence contributes: the planning purpose, the no-side-effects caveat, and the expected response. The critical behavioral guidance is front-loaded.

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 critical planning behavior and tells the model what to return (plan id and CLI apply command), which helps given the missing output schema. However, the complete lack of parameter documentation makes the context incomplete for an agent that must correctly construct the inputs for a new deep-link-block removal.

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 mentions no parameters. The parameter names are moderately self-explanatory, but the agent has no explanation of how site_url, search_url, and deep_link_url relate to removing a deep-link block, which is a meaningful gap.

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 says the tool 'prepare[s] this change for human review' and 'records intent,' which describes a planning step rather than an execution step. However, it never explicitly names the deep-link block removal or says what 'this change' refers to, so the agent must rely on the tool name to know what it is actually planning.

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 clearly instructs the agent not to tell the user the change was applied, and to return the plan id and CLI apply command. That is useful guidance for one specific call, but it does not describe when to use this tool versus other plan_ tools or when not to use it.

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