edit_sitemap_xml

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the non-mutating contract is known. The description reinforces this with 'Does not save or publish', which is consistent and useful, but adds little else: it says nothing about the 50-edit batch limit, ordering of edits, or what an invalid edit id does. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate rather than rich.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the negative constraint plus next steps. The enumeration of five operation names is somewhat redundant with the action enum, costing a little space, but the structure is clear and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what comes back — presumably the transformed candidate XML — and it does not. Combined with the unexplained 'xml' input and undocumented edit semantics, an agent can infer the general shape of a call but not the input/output contract. Adequate as a pointer, incomplete as a specification.

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 only 33% and the description does not compensate. It re-lists the action enum values that the schema already enumerates, but leaves the critical 'xml' parameter unexplained (presumably the existing sitemap XML the edits apply to) and says nothing about how 'id'/'parent_id'/'entity' relate to that XML or what environment_profile does. This is repetition of structured data plus a gap where meaning was most needed.

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 specific verb and resource ('Construct a candidate SiteMap XML locally') and immediately scopes it with the operation names it supports. The word 'candidate' and 'locally' distinguish it from the publishing siblings without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

Explicitly says the tool 'Does not save or publish' and routes the agent to conditional record update and publish_sitemap for those steps, which is exactly the when-not guidance needed. It stops short of naming plan_sitemap_publication or save_sitemap_with_journal, both of which sit in the same workflow and could confuse an agent choosing a starting point.

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