Submit Sitemap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Submit a sitemap to Google Search Console' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether an existing sitemap is replaced), authentication requirements, rate limits, or the meaning of the output. For a mutation-like action, this is insufficient.

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 that efficiently states the action. However, it is so terse that it omits context other dimensions need; as a concise statement it earns a 4, though the brevity harms completeness elsewhere.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain what happens on submission, whether the sitemap must belong to the property, how errors are handled, or any prerequisites. Even though an output schema exists, the missing behavioral and usage context makes this definition incomplete.

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 the input schema already documents both site_url and feed_path. The description adds no further parameter meaning; the verb 'submit' loosely implies feed_path is the sitemap URL, but no additional semantics are provided. At the high coverage baseline, this is an acceptable 3.

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 ('Submit') and resource ('a sitemap to Google Search Console'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_sitemaps and delete_sitemap by indicating a creation/upload action. There is no ambiguity about what action is performed.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., list_sitemaps, get_sitemap, delete_sitemap). It does not mention prerequisites such as property verification, or whether a sitemap must not already exist. The usage context is only implied by the verb itself.

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