Submit a sitemap

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the concrete side effects: 'it registers the sitemap and pings Google to crawl it,' plus the auth prerequisite and the idempotent behavior ('re-submitting the same sitemap URL just refreshes it'). This adds substantial operational context without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, side-effect/auth, and idempotency. Front-loaded with the core verb+object, then essential caveats. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 action with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, side effects, auth requirements, and idempotency. The sibling context and annotations complete the picture, making the tool safe and correctly invocable.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (site_url, feedpath) with examples, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description does not add further parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Submit (or re-submit) a sitemap to Google Search Console for a property.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like gsc_list_sitemaps (list) and gsc_delete_sitemap (delete), and the explicit 'WRITE action' framing reinforces the tool's unique role.

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 clear context: it's for submitting or re-submitting sitemaps, and it explicitly warns about the OAuth scope requirement ('Requires the full webmasters OAuth scope') with a remediation path. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use gsc_list_sitemaps to view existing'), but the purpose and sibling differentiation make the when-to-use clear.

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