webmaster_prepare_sitemap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It hints that the result is a sitemap registration pending human approval, but it does not explain side effects, reversibility, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens after preparation. This is a significant gap for a mutating/staging tool.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. However, the awkward phrase 'expiring human approval' hurts clarity and could have been worded better.

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?

The tool has two required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, but the description is too terse to orient an agent. It fails to explain the prepare/apply workflow, prerequisites, or what 'human approval' means operationally, leaving the agent to guess whether this tool or apply_sitemap should be called.

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 tool description does not explain 'host_id' or 'url'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but nothing clarifies expected formats, where host_id comes from, or whether url must be a full sitemap URL.

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 names a specific action ('prepare') and resource ('sitemap registration'), so the core purpose is discernible. However, the phrase 'for expiring human approval' is ambiguous and likely contains a typo, and the description does not distinguish this tool from the sibling webmaster_apply_sitemap.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'human approval' implies a staging step, but it never says to use apply_sitemap for the actual submission or explains the prepare/apply split.

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