Submit Sitemap Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about idempotency, whether an existing sitemap is replaced, auth/verification requirements, or rate limits. Only the phrase 'for crawling' hints at behavior; for a mutation tool this is a substantial 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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity arguably under-serves the tool rather than being exemplary conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and no usage context the description leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently (prerequisites, effect on existing sitemaps, required site ownership).

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%, so both parameters (site_url, feedpath) are already documented in the schema with an example for feedpath. The description adds no format, constraint, or relationship information beyond that, 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?

The description states a clear verb+resource ('Submit a sitemap'), which is unambiguous about what the tool does and is distinguishable by name from siblings like list_sitemaps_tool or get_sitemap_tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings or state the effect of submission.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing about prerequisites (e.g., site verification), when to submit vs. refresh, or how it relates to list_sitemaps_tool/get_sitemap_tool. The agent must infer all usage context.

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