Submit a sitemap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the key behavioral profile. The description adds the 'or resubmit' nuance, which aligns with idempotence, but it does not go further into side effects, permission requirements, or confirmation behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler: it names the action immediately and the scope. Every word earns its place, and the optional '(or resubmit)' adds meaningful nuance without bloat.

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 complete schema coverage, helpful annotations, and no output schema, the description is almost sufficient. The only notable omission is a hint about what happens when the sitemap already exists or how to interpret a result, but '(or resubmit)' and idempotentHint already cover repetition safety. Overall adequate 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already carry full descriptions with examples and hints (e.g., 'Use gsc_list_sites to discover it'). The description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Description states 'Submit (or resubmit) a sitemap URL for a property' — a specific action (submit/resubmit) on a clear resource (sitemap URL) with explicit scope (for a property). This differentiates it naturally from sibling tools like gsc_list_sitemaps (list) and sitemap_check (check), so an agent can choose it without opening schemas.

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 description implies when to use it (to submit or resubmit a sitemap), which is useful context. However, it provides no explicit alternatives or exclusion guidance, such as 'use gsc_list_sitemaps to see existing sitemaps first' or 'don't use if you only need to verify a sitemap'. This is a gap but not confusing.

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