submit_sitemap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explicitly warn that this is 'a real write operation,' which is a useful safety signal. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, idempotence, or expected response behavior, leaving a notiecable 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and resource immediately, and the phrase 'a real write operation' earns its place as a clear behavioral safety cue.

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?

Given the tool's simple 2-param schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the core action and mutation risk. But it lacks explicit guidance on how to choose this tool over siblings and says nothing about post-submission expectations or verification requirements, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but it also doesn't need to because the schema already defines the sitemap_url format and site_url nuance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') with an explicit alternative ('resubmit'), names the concrete resource ('a sitemap to Search Console'), and flags the write nature of the operation. This clearly differentiates it from read-oriented sibling tools like list_sitemaps and get_indexing_status.

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 implies when to use the tool (whenever you need to submit or resubmit a sitemap), but it does not explicitly route the agent to alternatives such as list_sitemaps for inspecting existing sitemaps or request_indexing for URL-level requests. There is no when-not or exclusions guidance.

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