Add Sitemap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only says 'Add.' It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, whether the user must own the host, whether adding is idempotent or errors on duplicates, or what authentication is required. The only behavioral signal is the implied write from 'Add.'

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and has no filler. It is concise, though trivially so given how little information it conveys.

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 output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a mutation tool with no annotations, three required parameters, and many sibling sitemap tools, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, ownership requirements, duplicate handling, and how it differs from other sitemap operations.

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 100%, so all three parameters (user_id, host_id, sitemap_url) are well documented in the schema itself, including format examples. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a verb and resource ('Add a sitemap'), which is clear enough in isolation, but the title is identical and the description adds nothing to distinguish it from the many sitemap siblings (get_sitemaps, get_user_added_sitemaps, delete_sitemap, get_sitemap_info). No scope or host/user context is given.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites for adding a sitemap, and doesn't mention alternatives like get_user_added_sitemaps or how this relates to verification. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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