gsc_submit_sitemaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so outstandingly. It discloses idempotency, host-matching routing, persistence behavior, the refusal-to-guess safeguard, return shapes, and all auth/error handling (auth_required, not_configured, unexpected). No behavioral blind spots remain.

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 lengthy but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core action, then organizes complex behavioral details into logical sections covering parameter use, refusal behavior, return shape, and error handling. No filler 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?

Despite the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description fully specifies input semantics, expected return entries, persistence side effects, and every failure mode. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results without additional 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 only defines an optional nullable 'sitemaps' array with no description. The description compensates fully by explaining that it is a list of sitemap URLs routed via host-matching, that omitting it resubmits all recorded sitemaps, and that if no sitemaps are known it will return a specific error rather than guessing. This adds substantial meaning beyond the 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 opens with a specific action: 'Submit one or more sitemaps to Search Console (PUT, idempotent -- safe to resubmit an already-known sitemap).' It clearly identifies the verb, resource, and core operation, and distinguishes itself from siblings like gsc_list_sites and gsc_check_status, which are about listing or checking status rather than submitting.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool and how to use the optional 'sitemaps' parameter: omit it to resubmit every sitemap already on record, or provide a list to target specific sitemaps. It also explains the refusal-to-guess behavior when no sitemaps are known. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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