submit_sitemap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the action is a submission and that resubmission is allowed, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, validation behavior, or what response the caller should expect. For a mutation-like operation, this is a meaningful gap.

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. Every word contributes to the core action, and the parenthetical 'or resubmit' efficiently captures an important nuance without bloating the text.

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 is simple, has only two parameters, and the schema covers both fully, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. However, with no annotations or output schema, the description could still be more complete by noting prerequisites, expected response behavior, or when to prefer a sibling tool like submit_urls.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% description coverage, including the feedUrl example and the siteUrl default behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'submit a sitemap URL', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action, 'Submit (or resubmit)', and a clear resource, 'a sitemap URL for the site.' It conveys the core behavior and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sitemaps and remove_sitemap by the submit/resubmit verb, though it does not explicitly name those 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?

The phrase 'Submit (or resubmit)' implies the tool should be used when adding a new sitemap or refreshing an existing one, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to sibling tools such as submit_urls, indexnow, or remove_sitemap. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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