gsc_submit_sitemap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions submission/resubmission but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwrites, re-crawl triggering), rate limits, authentication needs, or success/failure behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise with two short sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides parameter insight. No redundant content, though it could be more structured with bullet points.

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 has 2 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown). The description is too minimal to cover what the tool does, what is expected, or how to interpret results. More context about the submission process and response is needed.

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 0%. The description explains only feedpath (absolute URL with example) but omits site_url. It adds partial meaning but does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving one parameter completely unexplained.

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/resubmit) and the resource (sitemap URL to GSC). It also explains the feedpath parameter. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like bing_submit_url or indexnow_submit_url, but the tool name and context make it specific to GSC.

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, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. It only implies usage for submitting sitemaps to GSC.

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