Notify Google that a URL changed

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

The description discloses several important non-obvious behaviors: the API silently succeeds and changes nothing for non-qualifying pages, it returns 403 without explaining whether the problem is ownership or verification, and the default quota is 200 URLs per day. This adds substantial context beyond the annotations, which only provide idempotent and non-destructive hints.

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 compact and front-loaded: a clear first sentence states the action, followed by essential caveats, auth requirements, and quota. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant wording or filler.

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 tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers all operationally critical context: supported use cases, the alternative path for normal pages, auth ownership requirements, failure behavior, a deletion caveat, and quota limits. Nothing needed to use this tool correctly 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by explaining that URL_DELETED truly requires the page to return 404 or 410, and that unsupported pages will produce a no-op despite a successful-looking response. This goes beyond the schema without duplicating it.

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 states a specific action: it tells Google through the Indexing API that a URL was updated or removed. It also clearly differentiates this from a general crawl-injection tool and from sitemap submission, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like submit_sitemap.

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 explicitly says this only works for pages with JobPosting or BroadcastEvent structured data, and for any other page the agent should submit a sitemap instead. It also gives the prerequisite that the credential must be a verified owner and notes the quota, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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