Отправить страницу на переобход

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

The description discloses key behavioral details beyond annotations: it returns a 202 status with task_id and quota_remainder, explains the daily quota, and lists specific error codes (400, 409, 429). This adds significant context about rate limits and duplicate handling, which annotations only hint at.

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 a single paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loaded with the main action. It is informative without being verbose, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for errors).

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 description is comprehensive for a tool with no output schema: it explains the return object, status code, quota behavior, and all possible errors. It also references the host_id parameter from the schema, making the tool easy to use correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides full coverage of the two parameters (url and host_id) with descriptions. The tool description adds minor context (e.g., URL must belong to the site via the 400 error), but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the 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 function: it sends a site page to the queue for recrawl by the robot. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_sites or add_sitemap.

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 when to use the tool (when a page needs recrawling) but provides no explicit comparison to alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. The mention of quota and error conditions gives context, but no direct usage exclusions.

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