Refresh VIPMP sitemap

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it fetches external Adobe content, merges hand-curated tags, persists to sitemap.json, affects future server startups, takes about 30 seconds over ~80 pages, and is safe to run repeatedly. These details align with the annotations (idempotent, not read-only, not destructive) without contradicting them.

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 compact and well-structured: the lead sentence captures the core behavior, the bullet list makes usage conditions scannable, and each sentence adds distinct value such as duration, side effects, or safety. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 zero-argument maintenance tool, the description covers why to run it, what it does, how long it takes, what it affects, and that it is safe to repeat. Since an output schema exists and the annotations are rich, the description does not need to explain return values or safety annotations.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no undocumented arguments for the description to clarify. The description still explains the implicit inputs it relies on (Adobe's published sitemap and hand-curated search tags), which is useful context.

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 states a specific operation ('Rebuild the sitemap'), a concrete source (Adobe's published /sitemap.xml), and a clear outcome (persisting to sitemap.json so future server startups use the refreshed list). It also names the actual processing steps, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like warm_vipmp_cache or rebuild_vipmp_index.

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 gives explicit 'Run this if' bullets covering 404s, newly-added pages, and stale sitemaps, which clearly signal when the tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to run it, but the trigger conditions are concrete enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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