gsc_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 only says 'submits a sitemap for crawling' without explaining whether the action is idempotent, whether it requires prior site verification, what happens if the sitemap already exists, or what the response indicates. For a mutation-like operation, this is sparse.

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 extraneous wording. It communicates the core action and destination in minimal space.

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 operation is simple and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, because there is no output schema and no behavioral details such as prerequisites or error handling, the description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent that needs to understand the submission outcome.

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 fully with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, but 'for crawling in Search Console' gives some context about the purpose of the feedpath.

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 states a specific verb ('submits'), a specific resource ('sitemap'), and the target system ('Search Console'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like gsc_list_sitemaps, gsc_get_sitemap, and gsc_delete_sitemap because it is the action of submitting rather than listing, retrieving, or deleting.

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: when a sitemap needs to be submitted to Search Console. However, it provides no explicit comparison with alternatives, no exclusions, and no guidance about prerequisites such as site verification or whether the sitemap must already exist.

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