bing_plan_submit_content

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

The description adds useful behavioral insight beyond the annotations by clarifying that this operation sends nothing, only records intent, and must not be reported as applied. It does not contradict the annotations, and the note about returning the plan ID and CLI apply command helps set user expectations.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads purpose, then clarifies side effects, then explains the expected user-facing response.

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 tool's intent and user-facing behavior well, but with five required parameters, zero schema documentation, and no output schema, the input semantics are largely unknown. Additional parameter descriptions or an example would be necessary for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 gives no meaning for site_url, url, http_message, structured_data, or dynamic_serving. The description does not compensate for the schema gap, so an agent has no way to know what these fields should contain.

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 states the tool prepares a change for human review and records intent rather than applying it. However, it refers to "this change" without explicitly tying it to the content submission implied by the tool name, and it does not differentiate among the many sibling bing_plan_* 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 establishes a clear use context: use it to stage a change for human review, not to make an actual change. It provides clear context, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools.

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