Sitemaps

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description explicitly says 'submit and delete change the property' and describes a delete action. The description asserts mutation and deletion while the annotations assert a non-mutating, non-destructive tool — a direct conflict. Despite the useful --enable-writes gating detail, the contradiction with the safety annotations caps this at 1.

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 compact clause-sentences: resource definition, then the status action, then the write actions with their precondition. Information is front-loaded and no sentence is filler, though the fragment opening ('Sitemaps of a property:') is slightly terse.

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 four-action tool with no output schema, the description covers what the resource is, the per-action requirements, and the server-side write gate. It could say more about what the default list action returns, but the annotations and schema carry most of the remaining structure.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds actionable constraint the schema cannot express: submit and delete only function when the server was started with --enable-writes, and status is scoped to a single sitemap URL. That gating information meaningfully conditions how the action parameter can be invoked.

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 names the resource (sitemaps of a Search Console property) and enumerates what it exposes: submitted files with status, errors, warnings and submitted/indexed counts. It also clarifies the multi-action surface (list, status, submit, delete). It is clear without needing sibling differentiation, since none of the listed siblings (query, inspect-url, opportunities, etc.) overlap with sitemap management.

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?

It states the operational conditions for the destructive/non-default actions ('action=status returns one sitemap (sitemap_url required)' and 'submit and delete ... only work when the server was started with --enable-writes'), which is useful when-to-use context for the sub-actions. It does not, however, say when to prefer this tool over siblings or when to prefer list vs status, leaving tool-selection to inference.

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