Submit a sitemap

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Safe to repeat' largely restates structured data. It does add real behavioral context by explaining the side effect is triggering a Google fetch, which the annotations do not encode. No mention of prerequisites such as the site needing to be a verified property.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the action stated first and the idempotency note second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need only carry purpose and repeatability, which it does. It is slightly thin on prerequisites and cross-tool routing for a tool sitting in a 22-tool sitemap/site family.

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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions (exact site_url from list_sites; full sitemap URL with an example). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (submit/resubmit) and resource (sitemap), plus the effect: 'so Google fetches it.' That separates it cleanly from list_sitemaps, get_sitemap, and delete_sitemap by verb. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops 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?

'(or resubmit)' and 'Safe to repeat' imply the retry/resubmit use case, which is useful context. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing (e.g., when to prefer submit_sitemap over add_site or how it relates to list_sitemaps), so usage is only implied.

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