search_console_sitemaps_submit

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

Discloses mutation, idempotency via PUT semantics, return format, lack of synchronous processing, and the requirement that the user is a verified owner. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and covers it thoroughly.

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?

A single paragraph of about 6 sentences, well-structured starting with purpose, then behavior, then alternatives. No redundant sentences, but could be slightly more concise. Still efficient.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return format and notes asynchronous processing. Covers prerequisites (verified owner) and explains implications of repeated calls. Complete for a simple mutation tool with well-documented parameters.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds behavioral context like 'Must be on the same host as site_url and reachable to Googlebot over HTTPS' for feedpath, and explains site_url formats. This adds value beyond 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 clearly states the verb 'submit' and the resource 'sitemap URL to Google Search Console'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_console_sitemaps_list and search_console_url_inspection_inspect, and notes that it mutates state.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'For read-only inspection of already-submitted sitemaps use search_console_sitemaps_list; for per-URL indexing diagnostics use search_console_url_inspection_inspect.' Also notes idempotency and that it does not fetch or validate contents.

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