submit_sitemap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It notes the destructive nature via the prerequisite flag and includes an instruction not to speculate on results, but it lacks details on success/failure behavior, side effects, or rate limits.

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 highly concise: two short paragraphs covering purpose, parameters, a requirement, and a behavioral note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter meanings, a usage condition, and a behavioral instruction. It lacks details on return value, but this is acceptable for a simple 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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by defining 'site_url' as 'Property URL' and 'feedpath' as 'Full sitemap URL' with an example. This compensates somewhat for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Submit a sitemap' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'list_sitemaps' which lists sitemaps, making the action unambiguous.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'GSC_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true', which provides necessary context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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