Add Sitemap

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

Annotations already fully cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add operational context. It does so with the write-flag gate, which is exactly the kind of auth/environment prerequisite the annotations cannot express and which will cause a call to fail if unmet. What remains undisclosed is failure behavior for an invalid sitemap URL, which is a modest gap.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the action is front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no nested objects, the definition gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly and to know the write flag is required. The one gap is that, with no output schema, nothing is said about what a successful submission returns or how failures surface.

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% and both parameters already carry rich documentation, including that site_url must come from wsp_list_websites_gsc and the domain-vs-URL-prefix distinction. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submit or resubmit a sitemap') and the 'or resubmit' phrasing clarifies that the tool covers both first-time and repeat submissions. It is clearly distinct from siblings like wsp_show_sitemap_gsc and wsp_remove_sitemap_gsc by verb, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Submit or resubmit', and the description adds a hard precondition ('Requires WSP_ALLOW_WRITES=true') that an agent must satisfy before calling. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over alternatives such as verifying an existing sitemap with wsp_show_sitemaps_gsc.

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