webmaster_apply_sitemap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds some useful behavioral context: the operation is conditional on acceptance, uses a durable idempotency key, and returns registration readback. Still, it does not disclose effects, failure behavior, or whether submission is replaceable/reversible.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, the phrase 'durable key and registration readback' is dense and could be more transparent, slightly reducing readability.

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?

Although an output schema exists, this is a 4-required-parameter state-changing operation with no annotations and no parameter documentation. The description does not explain where approval_id comes from, how host_id and url relate, or how idempotency is enforced, leaving important gaps for correct invocation.

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% for all four required parameters. The description only hints at idempotency_key ('durable key') and loosely maps 'accepted' to approval_id, but it does not explain url, host_id, or approval_id semantics. This fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 verb ('Submit') and resource ('one accepted sitemap'), which clearly identifies the operation. The mention of 'durable key' and 'registration readback' helps distinguish this apply step from list/prepare siblings, though the jargon is somewhat cryptic.

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 phrase 'accepted sitemap' implies this tool should be used after a sitemap has been prepared or approved, and 'durable key' suggests idempotent retry behavior. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and the relationship to webmaster_prepare_sitemap is left implicit.

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