search_console_sitemaps_submit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool mutates Search Console state, is safe to call repeatedly (PUT not POST, no duplicate entries), returns a status object with no synchronous processing status, does not fetch/validate sitemap contents, and requires verified owner/full user status.

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?

Every sentence in the description earns its place: purpose, mutation semantics, idempotency, return format, async behavior, auth requirement, and sibling tool differentiation. It is dense but well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return value, lack of synchronous status, async validation, auth prerequisites, and provides clear alternatives. No significant context is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it references 'feedpath' and 'site_url' only implicitly. However, the schema's parameter descriptions are already detailed, so no deduction is warranted.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Submit a sitemap URL to Google Search Console for the given verified site.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming search_console_sitemaps_list and search_console_url_inspection_inspect as alternatives, and explains the mutation/refresh behavior.

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 states when to use this tool vs alternatives: '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 provides context on idempotency, auth requirements, and the asynchronous nature of processing.

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