Submit Sitemap

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only mutation, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds one useful behavioral precondition—the URL must be accessible and return valid XML—but it does not disclose error conditions, property verification requirements, or duplicate-handling behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by the key precondition. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 simple two-parameter write action with no output schema, this is nearly complete: the action and the critical input condition are stated. Minor gaps are that it does not mention that the property must be verified in Search Console or describe the success/error response, but these are not blocking for a basic call.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by constraining sitemapUrl beyond the schema's uri format: it must be accessible and return valid XML. It does not address siteUrl, but that parameter is already documented with its fallback behavior in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a new sitemap to Google Search Console.' This immediately distinguishes it from read/list siblings such as list_sitemaps and from delete_sitemap, so the agent can disambiguate without examining schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is named. The valid-and-accessible XML precondition offers some context, but the tool's usage is only implied by the verb and resource. An agent is not told to use list_sitemaps for existing entries or delete_sitemap for removal.

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