submit_sitemap_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'Submit a sitemap for crawling' gives no detail about side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing sitemaps), required permissions, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no redundant wording, making it very concise. However, it is so brief that it lacks structure or elaboration; there is no wasted text, but the overall content is minimal.

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 tool has an output schema and only 2 parameters, so complexity is low. Yet, the description is too sparse: it omits when to use the tool, behavioral implications, and any context about how it fits with site management. Given there are no annotations, this description is not complete enough for an agent to use it confidently.

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%: both feedpath and site_url are described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not harm, but it does not compensate for any vagueness in the site_url description.

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 uses the specific verb 'submit' with the resource 'sitemap' and the purpose 'for crawling', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sitemaps_tool or delete_sitemap_tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the scope or target, making it slightly less precise than a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_site_tool or get_sitemap_tool. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., site must exist) or mention any specific scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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