plan_sitemap_publication

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that reads are bounded ('bounded required dependencies') and that 'partial reads are explicitly reported', which tells the agent to expect incomplete results. It stops short of saying how partiality is surfaced or how deep the dependency traversal goes.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, which is good. However, it is front-loaded with a dense noun list rather than the tool's action, making it harder to parse than a purpose-first phrasing would be.

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?

With no output schema and only 50% parameter coverage, the description should explain what the returned 'plan' contains, what the required id refers to, and how partial reads are signaled. None of that is present, leaving significant gaps for a planning tool that feeds a subsequent publish step.

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 coverage is only 50%: environment_profile is documented, but the required 'id' has no schema description and the description never says whether it identifies a sitemap, an AppModule, or a solution. With half the parameters unexplained and the required one ambiguous, the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 is a noun-phrase list ('combined SiteMap, direct AppModule associations, bounded required dependencies and individual publication previews') rather than a verb+resource statement, so the agent must infer that this returns a preview/plan of what a sitemap publication would involve. It is distinguishable from publish_sitemap and save_sitemap_with_journal by the 'read-only' and 'previews' wording, but the core action is never stated outright.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over siblings such as publish_sitemap, inspect_sitemap_applications, or save_sitemap_with_journal, and no prerequisites. The agent can only guess that this is a pre-publication dry run.

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