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 disclosing side effects. It only says 'submit or resubmit', implying a mutation, but does not mention potential impacts (e.g., rate limits, whether resubmission replaces existing, permissions required) or error behavior.

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 appropriately sized: a one-sentence purpose followed by a structured Args section. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite having no annotations, the tool is simple and the description covers essential parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema (not shown) relieves the description from explaining return values. It does not mention error cases or permissions, but those are not always required for a straightforward submission tool.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's detailed explanations for site_url (with examples and domain property semantics) and sitemap_url (full URL) fully compensate. This is high-value parameter guidance beyond the raw 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 resource ('sitemap to Google'), including both new and resubmission cases. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_sitemaps and delete_sitemap by specifying the action.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (submitting or resubmitting a sitemap) and gives a crucial prerequisite ('site_url from list_properties') with guidance on domain vs site properties. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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