Добавить sitemap

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

Description adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: returns 201 with sitemap_id, raises 409 SITEMAP_ALREADY_ADDED for duplicates, and requires confirmed site rights. This enriches the readOnly/idempotent hints and provides concrete error semantics.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return format, error condition, and prerequisite. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its 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?

For a simple 2-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the main operational aspects: action, response, error, and permission requirement. However, it lacks an explicit note on when to use it vs. list_sitemaps or how host_id is used, though the schema fills that gap. Overall, sufficiently complete for invocation.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific details, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully documents url and host_id semantics.

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 action ('Добавляет sitemap-файл вручную') and the resource (sitemap file). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_sitemaps (which lists) and add_site (which adds a site), even referencing the Webmaster interface section as an analogy.

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 implies usage context (manual addition, requires confirmed rights) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No reference to sibling tools like list_sitemaps or automatic sitemap detection is given, so guidance is only implied.

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