webmaster_prepare_recrawl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a preparation step requiring human approval and checks rather than immediate execution, but it is ambiguous whether the checks are performed by the tool or expected already, and it omits side effects or failure behavior.

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 12-word sentence with the verb and primary constraint front-loaded. No redundant phrases or filler, and every element contributes to the tool's purpose.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the overall workflow but leaves host_id unexplained and does not clearly connect this preparation step to the follow-up apply step or the quota-check sibling. The ambiguous 'after checks' also leaves a gap in the operation's contract.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it only adds 'exactly one' for URL and says nothing about host_id or URL format. An agent would still have to infer the meaning and constraints of the required host_id from its name alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('prepare'), a singular resource ('exactly one URL'), and a clear workflow position ('for human approval'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like webmaster_apply_recrawl and webmaster_get_recrawl_task. It also names the prerequisite checks, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

It states the condition under which the tool should be used ('after ownership, quota and duplicate checks') and that output goes to human approval, which is clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the prepare-vs-apply distinction is implied.

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