gsc_submit_sitemap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the auth requirement and availability, but does not explain behavior like error handling or confirmation of submission. With rich annotations, the description provides adequate but not exceptional additional context.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and essential requirements. Every sentence adds crucial information without redundancy. It is efficiently structured and easy to scan.

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 no output schema, the description could mention what the user can expect after submission (e.g., success confirmation or asynchronous processing). It covers auth, availability, and parameter choice, but misses result transparency. This is a moderate gap for a 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 coverage is 100%, so the description's contribution is additive. It explains the relationship between sitemap_url and feedpath, recommending sitemap_url as the friendly name. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions, which already include the alias information.

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 a sitemap') and the target system ('Search Console'). The verb-submit is unique among sibling tools, and the description distinguishes it from read-only tools like gsc_list_sitemaps by implying a write operation.

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 useful guidance: required scope ('writable webmasters'), availability ('routine SEO task; not gated'), and preferred parameter ('sitemap_url' vs. 'feedpath'). It does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings, but the unique action makes context clear.

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