Add Sitemap file

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

Annotations only declare the mutation/idempotency profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true); the description adds substantial context beyond that: the verified-host prerequisite and its 404 HOST_NOT_VERIFIED failure, and the 409 SITEMAP_ALREADY_ADDED duplicate case, including that the error payload carries the existing sitemap_id. This is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose and return value are front-loaded, then prerequisites, error cases, and routing guidance in priority order. Six short sentences, each carrying distinct information, though the error-code detail could be marginally tighter.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the return value (sitemap_id), the host-verification prerequisite, both known failure modes, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 (url, host_id) are already documented with format examples in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Add) and resource (Sitemap file to Yandex Webmaster, user-added sitemaps) and immediately names the return value (sitemap_id). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings get-user-sitemaps and delete-host, so an agent can route correctly without opening another schema.

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?

Gives an explicit positive trigger ("Use when the user asks to register a sitemap URL on an already verified host") plus two explicit exclusions with the correct alternatives: listing goes to get-user-sitemaps, host deletion goes to delete-host. Nothing is left to inference.

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