bing_plan_submit_url

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states that no actual submission occurs and that the tool only records intent. This directly addresses potential misunderstanding about a tool named 'submit_url' and also clarifies what to return to the user, which the annotations alone do not convey.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and has only three focused sentences. Each sentenceearns its place by addressing what the tool does, what it does not do, and how the agent should respond.

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?

Fi for a two-string-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral and response expectations well. Bu it misses parameter semantics and gives no guidance toward the many sibling bing_plan_* tools, so it is not complete enough to guarantee correct invocation and disambiguation.

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 provides no insight into what 'url' or 'site_url' mean, how they relate, or what formats are accepted. Since the description must compensate for this lack of schema documentation, its complete silence on parameters leaves the agent to guess.

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 identifies the core action as 'prepare this change for human review' and explicitly says it 'sends nothing and only records intent,' which distinguishes it from a direct submission. It does not explicitly name 'submit URL' or 'site_url' as the resource, but the tool name and required parameters make that 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 gives clear post-call instructions: do not claim the change was applied, return the plan id, and provide the CLI apply command. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus siblings like bing_plan_submit_url_batch or bing_plan_indexnow_submit, leaving the selection inference to the agent.

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