webmaster_prepare_recrawl

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds real substance beyond that: pre-flight ownership, quota and duplicate validation, the requirement for human approval, and the single-URL scope that explains the non-idempotent hint. It does not describe behavior on check failure (e.g. quota exhausted), so it stops short of 5.

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 zero filler; the scope constraint and the validation pipeline are both stated up front.

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 not be explained, and the approval workflow is conveyed. However, with 0% parameter coverage the definition leaves the caller to guess the url/host_id relationship and does not indicate the follow-up tool, which is a notable gap for a mutation-flow entry point.

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% and the description never mentions 'url' or 'host_id', so it adds no meaning to either parameter. With two undocumented parameters the description should at least clarify the URL must belong to the host, but it does not.

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?

Specific verb ('prepare') and resource ('one URL') with an explicit scope quantifier ('exactly one') that separates it from batch siblings like webmaster_apply_recrawl and webmaster_prepare_sitemap. Sibling differentiation is implied by the prepare/apply verb split rather than stated, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 'for human approval' implies this is the first phase of a two-step flow, but no alternative is named (e.g. use webmaster_apply_recrawl to commit) and no when-not guidance is given. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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