submit_sitemap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds the operational enablement gate (GSC_ALLOW_WRITE=1), which is a genuine behavioral constraint not present in the annotations and is exactly the kind of auth/precondition context that earns credit.

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 short sentence with the verb, resource, resubmit case, and precondition front-loaded; no filler. It is arguably too terse for a write tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is any explanation of the two required parameters and the target site/property context, which is a meaningful gap for a mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two required parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only gestures at 'a sitemap URL' and never explains what site_url means (property vs. sitemap host) or how the two relate, leaving the required site_url parameter entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('Submit (or resubmit) a sitemap URL') and the resubmit nuance implies the upsert behavior an agent needs. It does not name sibling tools (delete_sitemap, get_sitemap, list_sitemaps) to disambiguate, so it falls short of a 5.

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 parenthetical '(needs GSC_ALLOW_WRITE=1)' gives a concrete precondition for calling the tool, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no when-to-use vs alternatives framing and no statement of when not to call it relative to delete_sitemap or list_sitemaps.

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