webmaster_recrawl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: POST mutating call, irreversible, requires confirm: true, hard rate limit (150/day), and batch cap. It even specifies the pre-condition that the user must see the URL list first. Side effects and limits are fully disclosed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the constraints and the safety requirement. No filler; every clause conveys a distinct operational fact.

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 mutating submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition supplies everything needed to call it correctly: quota, batch size, irreversible confirmation flow, and user-visible prerequisite. Return format is not needed for a queue-submission operation.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented (urls up to 20, confirm must be true). The description reinforces the 20-URL cap and the meaning of confirm but adds little beyond what the schema already states, consistent with the baseline for full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('ставит URL в очередь на переобход Яндексом') and names the HTTP method. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by declaring it is the only mutating call in the server, so an agent can separate it from the read-only webmaster_* 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 concrete operating context: batch limit of 20 URLs, a 150/day site-wide quota, and the requirement to show the URL list to the user before confirming. It does not name an alternative tool or spell out when not to use it, but the quota and confirmation constraints give clear usage framing.

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