submit_sitemap

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/is-idempotency/open-world profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does add the probe-before-submit behavior and the fact that Google's status is returned, but says nothing about failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the sitemap probe fails) or auth requirements.

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 dense sentence with the action, default, and return value all front-loaded; no filler or repetition.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the default path and return content. It stops short of covering auth prerequisites or error behavior, which is a minor gap given the sibling auth_* tools.

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% and sitemapUrl has no schema description at all; the description compensates by stating the default value '<site>/sitemap.xml', which explains that parameter's optionality and semantics. The 'site' parameter is already well documented in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('submits a sitemap to Search Console'), plus the extra probe step and the returned artifact ('Google's sitemap status'). It is distinguishable from check_sitemap/list_sitemaps, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'probes then submits' signals it is the write-side counterpart to the read-only sitemap tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of prerequisites such as being authenticated first.

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