bing_plan_submit_site_move

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it sends nothing, records only intent, and the caller must not misrepresent the result as an applied change. This directly prevents a likely misunderstanding, especially since the tool is not marked read-only.

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 states the purpose first, then the behavioral caveat, then the required response instructions. 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?

It gives useful post-call guidance by mentioning the plan id and the CLI apply command, which partially compensates for the absent output schema. However, the required settings object is entirely unspecified, and the description does not provide enough context for an agent to construct a valid request.

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 of site_url or the settings object, mention required fields inside settings, or show a usage shape. site_url is only inferable by its name, while settings is a black box.

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 clear purpose: prepare a change for human review, and explicitly clarifies that it only records intent rather than executing an action. However, it says 'this change' instead of naming the site move directly, so part of the resource is left to the tool name rather than made explicit.

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 implies the correct workflow: do not tell the user the change was applied, return the plan id and CLI apply command, and let a human review the plan. It does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives such as bing_site_moves or other bing_plan_submit_* operations, so usage guidance remains more implied than explicit.

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