manage_sitemaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context about site_url semantics (domain property covers all subdomains and suggests filtering by page), which goes beyond raw parameter definitions. However, it does not disclose potential side effects of the delete action, permission requirements, or any irreversible consequences. This is a moderate disclosure, earning a 3.

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. The first sentence captures the tool's purpose and actions in one line, followed by a clear 'Args' section that explains each parameter without unnecessary verbosity. The structure is efficient and all sentences earn their place.

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?

Given that there are no annotations, 4 parameters, and an output schema, the description covers the essential parameter details and provides context about domain properties. It lacks clear usage guidance (when to choose this over siblings), which is a minor gap. Overall, it is complete enough for an experienced agent to use correctly, but not fully self-sufficient due to the missing sibling-differentiation context.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It does so excellently: explains site_url with exact examples and domain-property behavior, defines the action values (list, details, submit, delete), clarifies sitemap_url requirement for three actions, and specifies sitemap_index's optional use for 'list'. This is rich, precise parameter semantics that goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'All-in-one tool to manage sitemaps (list, get details, submit, delete).' It specifies the verb (manage), resource (sitemaps), and the supported actions. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the dedicated sibling tools (get_sitemaps, submit_sitemap, delete_sitemap, etc.), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative sitemap-specific tools. It does not mention that this is a consolidated alternative, nor does it give any context about when a user might prefer one tool over another. The only contextual note is about domain properties for site_url, which is parameter guidance, not usage selection.

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