Submit a sitemap

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

The description adds valuable details beyond annotations: the empty API response shape, asynchronous processing, and the need for full OAuth scope. These are pragmatic behavioral insights that help the agent anticipate outcomes and requirements.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with action and scope. Every sentence adds value: the action, the feedpath constraint, the response behavior, the asynchronous nature, the follow-up tool, and the auth requirement. No redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, this description is complete. It covers purpose, response format, async processing, OAuth requirement, and the recommended follow-up. The rich schema examples further fill in any remaining context.

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?

The input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters (feedpath format and site_url formats with examples). The description only restates the feedpath requirement ('full URL on the property') without adding new semantics, so it does not rise above the schema baseline.

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 clearly states the action ('Submits (or resubmits) a sitemap for the property') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_sitemaps, get_sitemap, and delete_sitemap by focusing on the submission operation.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool and a follow-up action ('check errors/warnings later with get_sitemap'), plus an important prerequisite (full OAuth scope). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough that the usage is implied.

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