webmaster_apply_sitemap

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

Annotations already declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. Beyond that, the description adds real context: 'one' bounds the scope to a single sitemap, 'accepted' signals a precondition, and 'registration readback' implies the call returns confirmation state. It still omits permission requirements and what happens on a rejected/unaccepted submission.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and zero filler. The compression is tight to the point that 'durable key and registration readback' reads as jargon, slightly hurting clarity, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a 4-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves host_id and the approval workflow step unaddressed and gives no error or precondition detail, making it thin for the tool's complexity.

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 0% across four undocumented parameters, so the description must carry the load. 'Durable key' loosely maps to idempotency_key and 'accepted' gestures at approval_id, but format, source, and the meaning of host_id are never addressed, leaving the mapping largely implicit.

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 (Submit) and resource (sitemap) with a single-item scope indicator ('one'). The qualifier 'accepted' implicitly ties it to the prepare/approval phase, distinguishing it from webmaster_prepare_sitemap, but the sibling relationship is never made explicit.

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 text says when to call this versus the alternatives in the prepare/apply/reconcile family (e.g., webmaster_prepare_sitemap or webmaster_reconcile_action). The 'accepted' wording hints that a prior approval step exists but routing guidance is left entirely to inference.

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