Plan a Search Console sitemap submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: nothing is written at plan stage, the 'Low risk' assessment, the domain/prefix scoping constraint, and the precise rollback semantics including the permission and approval requirements. No contradiction with the read-only annotation since planning performs no write.

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?

Front-loaded with the key fact ('PLAN (nothing is written)'), followed by constraint, risk level, apply path, and rollback conditions. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no filler.

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 plan-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle an agent needs: what planning means, the input constraint, the risk level, how to apply, and the rollback options and their requirements. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning for sitemap_url by defining the placement constraint (same domain or subdomain for sc-domain:, same prefix for URL-prefix properties). It does not elaborate on site_url/client_id beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('submit a sitemap to the client's Search Console property') and immediately flags the plan-only nature ('PLAN (nothing is written)'). An agent can tell this apart from the sibling gsc_sitemaps (list) and from apply tools 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Apply with google_apply after the user agreed,' and explains the rollback path in detail, including prerequisites (write.gsc.allow_delete and human approval) and the case with no rollback. When-to-use and the alternative follow-up tools are all named.

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