bing_plan_remove_site_role

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond what annotations provide: no external request is sent, only intent is recorded, the user should not be told the change was applied, and the result should include the plan id and CLI apply command. This is important behavioral guidance that helps an agent avoid misreporting an applied change.

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 concise and front-loaded: it starts with the essential 'prepare for human review' concept, then clarifies non-execution, then gives the caller's expected reporting behavior. No sentence is wasted.

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 gives helpful return-focused context by mentioning the plan id and the CLI apply command, but with no output schema and a nested input object, more detail was needed. Without parameter semantics or a pointer to where `site_role` structure can be obtained, this description is insufficient for correct tool construction.

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 does not explain the meaning or expected shape of `site_url` or especially `site_role`, which is a nested object. An agent has no reliable way to construct the `site_role` parameter from either the input schema or the description.

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 communicates the tool's main purpose: preparing a change for human review rather than applying it. It adds key distinguishing behavior such as 'sends nothing' and 'only records intent,' though it relies on the tool name to identify the specific resource being changed.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when a site-role removal change needs to be staged for human review, not executed directly. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, but it strongly implies that callers should use this for planning-only and then return the plan id and CLI apply command.

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