Submit a sitemap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('Submit') but does not state side effects, idempotency, potential errors, or whether repeated submissions are allowed. The 'same as clicking Submit in the UI' hint is thin and fails to cover key operational aspects like state changes or auth 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action. The parenthetical UI analogy adds minor context without bloat. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves room for missing behavioral detail that could be seen as excessive compression.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits crucial context such as the need for an existing property (siteUrl) or the relationship with sibling actions like gsc_add_site. The lack of guidance on prerequisites or expected outcomes leaves the agent under-informed for a non-trivial write operation.

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 description coverage is 100%—both parameters have descriptions (siteUrl fallback and feedpath example). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 ('Submit') and the resource ('a sitemap URL for a property'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gsc_list_sitemaps and gsc_get_sitemap by describing a submission operation. The 'same as clicking Submit in the UI' reinforces the action but doesn't add specificity about the property context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for adding a new sitemap, nor does it reference any prerequisites (e.g., site verification) or conditions that would make it the right choice over gsc_delete_sitemap or gsc_list_sitemaps. The UI comparison is vaguely contextual but not directive.

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