manage_sitemaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It names the four operation types, including the destructive 'delete' action, but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or response behavior beyond what the output schema implies.

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 Args block organizes parameter details cleanly, with each line providing useful information. There is slight redundancy between the opening sentence and the action parameter, but overall the length is appropriate for 4 parameters.

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?

All parameters are covered with actionable semantics, and the output schema handles return values. Missing broader context like rate limits, permissions, or failure modes, which could matter for a management tool, but given the rich parameter explanation, it is largely complete.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each argument: site_url format and domain-property semantics, action values, sitemap_url requirements, and sitemap_index usage. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 identifies the tool as an 'All-in-one tool to manage sitemaps' and lists the specific actions (list, details, submit, delete), making its purpose explicit and distinct from the more specialized sibling tools.

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?

Provides useful context: site_url should be from list_properties and explains domain property behavior. However, it does not explicitly guide the agent on when to use this combined tool vs. dedicated sibling tools such as get_sitemaps or submit_sitemap.

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