submit_sitemap

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

Annotations already specify that the tool is a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context such as the default for site_url (GSC_SITE_URL) and an example sitemap URL format, but it does not explain permissions, rate limits, or what resubmission changes behaviorally.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The Args section is useful given the schema has no parameter descriptions, and there is no obvious filler.

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?

An output schema exists and the annotations cover safety and idempotency traits. The description adds enough parameter context and default behavior for an agent to invoke the tool, though it could mention permission or auth requirements for a mutation-like submission action.

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 carry parameter meaning. It documents both parameters: site_url is described as the exact property and defaults to GSC_SITE_URL, while sitemap_url is described as a full URL with a concrete example. It could say more about the empty-string default for sitemap_url, but it substantially compensates for the schema gap.

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 verb and resource: 'Submit a new sitemap or resubmit an existing one.' It also distinguishes the two main modes, new versus resubmit. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as manage_sitemaps or delete_sitemap.

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 gives implied usage context by saying it is for submitting a new sitemap or resubmitting an existing one. It does not mention when to use this instead of manage_sitemaps, get_sitemaps, or other sitemap-related siblings, nor does it describe exclusions or prerequisites.

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