submit_sitemap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions submit/resubmit without addressing side effects, permissions, validation, or what happens on resubmission. The domain property note is helpful but does not cover mutation impact.

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 well-structured with an Args section, concise, and every sentence provides useful information. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 is relatively simple, and the description covers the core purpose and both parameters with practical guidance on domain properties. Since an output schema exists, return values are handled by that structure. It could be more complete by stating the outcome of resubmission, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates exceptionally well by explaining both parameters. site_url includes examples and domain property guidance, while sitemap_url is clearly defined as the full URL. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Submit a new sitemap or resubmit an existing one to Google' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sitemaps, list_sitemaps_enhanced, and delete_sitemap, which handle listing or deletion.

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 provides clear context by referencing list_properties for site_url and explaining the behavior of domain properties. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as manage_sitemaps for other sitemap operations.

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