gsc_submit_sitemap

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only indicates a write operation via [WRITE] but does not disclose behavior like idempotency, success/failure indications, or potential side effects.

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 extremely short (one phrase), which is concise but sacrifices completeness. It is front-loaded with purpose but omits critical details, making it minimally acceptable.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error states, or prerequisites, which are essential for a write 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 coverage is 50%: feedpath has a schema description, but siteUrl lacks any. The tool description does not add meaning for siteUrl or clarify default/required behavior beyond 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 tool submits or resubmits a sitemap, with a [WRITE] label. It distinguishes from siblings like gsc_delete_sitemap and gsc_list_sitemaps, though it could explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as gsc_request_indexing or gsc_inspect_url. Missing context for prerequisites or after-conditions.

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