bing_plan_remove_feed

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

The description adds important behavioral detail beyond the annotations: 'This sends nothing and only records intent' and 'Do not tell the user the change was applied; return the plan id and the CLI apply command.' This is exactly the kind of context that prevents an agent from falsely reporting that a feed was removed. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 well structured: it front-loads the purpose, then states the behavioral constraint, then gives post-call expectations. Every sentence contributes necessary guidance, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 behavior and the expected response, which is good given there is no output schema. However, it does not explain what the two required parameters are and relies on the tool name to convey that this is a feed-removal plan. For a simple two-parameter tool, this is viable but not fully complete.

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?

There are no parameter descriptions in the input schema and the tool description provides no information about site_url or feed_url. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the 0% schema description coverage. The agent gets no added meaning about what these URLs represent or how they relate to the planned feed removal.

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 states that the tool prepares a change for human review and records intent, but it does not explicitly say the change is removing a feed. It relies on the tool name and the pronoun 'this change' to carry the action. This is clear only when read alongside the tool name, and it does not differentiate from other bing_plan_remove_* sibling 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 description clearly establishes that this is a planning step: it sends nothing, only records intent, and returns a plan id and CLI apply command. This gives the agent a clear sense of when to use it versus expecting an immediate effect. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or spell out when-not-to-use conditions relative to the other bing_plan_remove_* tools.

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