submit_sitemap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not mention side effects, whether resubmission replaces existing sitemaps, permissions required, rate limits, or async validation behavior. This is a mutation tool, so those gaps are meaningful.

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 with the core purpose, then uses an Args section to add parameter guidance without redundancy. Every sentence provides actionable information, and there is no 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main action and both parameters thoroughly. It lacks explicit behavioral context like side effects or permissions, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, so the overall package is nearly complete.

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%, and the description fully compensates. It details that site_url must be an exact GSC property URL from list_properties, provides concrete examples including sc-domain format, and explains domain-property behavior. sitemap_url is also clarified as the full URL.

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 ('Submit') and resource ('sitemap') with a clear target ('to Google'), and the distinction between new and existing submissions is explicit. This clearly differentiates the tool from the get/list/delete sitemap siblings.

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 implies this is the tool for both initial submission and resubmission, and it gives domain-vs-subdomain usage guidance for site_url. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with siblings like manage_sitemaps or delete_sitemap, but the context is otherwise clear.

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