Update crawler and AI discovery settings

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the idempotentHint annotation. It does not mention side effects, whether changes are immediate, or any validation. The annotation is not contradicted, but the description adds minimal transparency.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it is too brief to provide adequate context. It could include more detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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 the high parameter count, lack of parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It only gives a high-level purpose, failing to guide the agent on proper use or expected results.

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 has 20 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain parameter meanings or relationships. Parameter names like 'aiCustomPolicy' or 'llmsInstructions' are not elaborated, leaving ambiguity.

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 controls generation of robots.txt, sitemap.xml, llms.txt, and ai.txt, which aligns with the name and title. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_site_settings by focusing on crawler and AI discovery files. However, 'control' is somewhat vague; could specify enabling/disabling or configuring.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_site_settings. No mention of prerequisites, constraints, or best practices. The description lacks context for appropriate invocation.

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