submit_sitemap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it submits and returns the state, without mentioning side effects, permissions, or the meaning of the dryRun parameter. It also fails to clarify whether this is a write operation or if it can overwrite existing sitemaps.

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 with no filler. It conveys the action and outcome efficiently.

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 presence of an output schema and full parameter coverage means return values and inputs are documented. However, the description lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidance, which are needed for a tool with no annotations, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding when and how to use it.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Submit'), a resource ('sitemap'), and a destination ('Google Search Console'), and mentions it returns the current state. This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_sitemap or list_sitemaps.

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 that this tool is for submitting sitemaps, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this over related tools like request_recrawl or indexnow_submit. There are no exclusions, so it is not misleading, but guidance is limited.

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