submit_sitemap

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. It states the action ('submit') but doesn't explain what submission entails—e.g., whether it's a one-time action, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns confirmation. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but the lack of behavioral details and parameter guidance leaves gaps in understanding how and when to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, with only 2 parameters and an output schema present, the baseline is 3, as the description adds no value beyond the schema's structural information.

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 the action ('submit') and resource ('a sitemap to Bing'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_sitemap' or 'submit_url' by specifying the sitemap submission context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'submit_url', 'submit_content', or 'remove_sitemap'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or specific scenarios for sitemap submission, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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