bing_plan_submit_feed

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

The description adds important behavior beyond the annotations: the tool sends nothing, only records intent, and must not be reported as if applied. This is highly useful for an agent because it prevents false claims of execution. It is consistent with the annotations, which do not mark this as read-only or destructive.

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 short sentences with no filler. The description front-loads the planning purpose, then adds the critical 'sends nothing' caveat, and closes with concrete agent instructions. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description helpfully covers the return value and the principal behavioral trap: telling the user the change was applied. It still misses parameter semantics entirely, although the self-explanatory property names keep this from being severely incomplete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention site_url or feed_url at all. With required parameters completely undocumented, the description does nothing to explain what values the agent should supply. Only the parameter names carry the meaning, which is not enough.

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 prepares a change for human review, sends nothing, and records intent, so the planning nature is clear. However, 'prepare this change' is anaphoric and never names the actual resource or change; 'feed' appears only in the tool name. This makes it hard to distinguish from siblings like bing_plan_submit_url or bing_plan_submit_content.

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 frames when to use it: for recording intent before human review, not for applying a change. The directive to return the plan id and CLI apply command and not tell the user the change was applied gives concrete usage guidance. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the workflow context is clear.

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