gsc_submit_sitemap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add useful non-obvious behavior: 'This is a write' and 'It is a dry run unless confirm=true'. However, it omits any mention of required permissions, side effects on success/failure, and the role of site_url, so the disclosure is only partial.

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 compact and front-loaded; the first sentence carries the core purpose and the write/dry-run warning follows immediately. The Args section is redundant with the schema but adds concrete examples, and no sentence is wasted.

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?

Given low schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it omits the site_url parameter entirely, provides no guidance on when to submit versus using the other GSC sitemap sibling tools, and does not explain what the dry run actually checks or returns. An agent would likely invoke it incorrectly when site_url matters.

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 description must compensate. It explains feedpath with a concrete example and confirm with its default behavior, but it never documents the site_url parameter that appears in the input schema, leaving a full third of the parameters unexplained.

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 clear action and resource ('Submit a sitemap to Search Console') and the dry-run/confirm behavior adds to understanding. It does not explicitly differentiate from related gsc_sitemap siblings like gsc_list_sitemaps, gsc_get_sitemap, or gsc_delete_sitemap, so it loses the top score.

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 guidance is given on when to choose this tool over sibling GSC sitemap tools. The dry-run/confirm note covers operation mode, not usage context, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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