bing_plan_remove_query_parameter

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds essential behavioral nuance: it 'sends nothing', 'only records intent', and the user should be told the change is not yet applied. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the two-phase workflow and what to convey to the user. It could mention idempotency or duplicate plans, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The first states purpose, the second states a critical user-interaction instruction. No wasted words, 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?

For a simple planning-intent tool with two string params, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the core action, necessary behavioral caveats, and user-informing instruction. The only minor gap is no alternate tool routing, which is a small miss given the extensive sibling set.

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 only says 'remove change' without any parameter-specific detail. 'site_url' and 'query_parameter' are reasonably inferred from the tool name, but with no descriptions in the schema, a small clarification such as 'provide the site's URL and the query parameter to remove' would help fully disambiguate format.

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 a specific verb ('Prepare this change') and resource (a change for review), clearly indicating it's a planning tool for a removal. It distinguishes itself from execution tools by noting it 'sends nothing and only records intent.' It could explicitly name the resource (query parameter removal) but the purpose is clear.

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 provides explicit instructions on what to do after use — do not tell the user applied, return plan id and CLI command. It implies usage before executing a removal change. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it over siblings like bing_plan_enable_disable_query_parameter or bing_plan_add_query_parameter, though the tool name makes this apparent.

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