gsc_submit_sitemap

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that it writes to the user's live property, requires a non-default write scope, performs a dry run unless confirm=true, and must be preceded by user agreement. These are critical behavioral details that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the action, the live-write warning, the scope prerequisite, the dry-run confirmation flow, and the feedpath format requirement. The most important warning is front-loaded in all caps, and there is no 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?

The description covers the destructive nature, auth requirement, dry-run behavior, confirmation process, and feedpath format, which is strong for a write operation. It only omits guidance on the optional site_url parameter, but the output schema likely clarifies return shape and the tool remains safely usable without that detail.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for feedpath by requiring it to be the full sitemap URL, and it clarifies confirm's role in gating the real write. However, site_url is not explained, leaving one parameter undocumented.

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 verb and resource: submit or re-ping a sitemap to Search Console. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like gsc_list_sitemaps, but the action and target are 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 gives clear context and a concrete usage workflow: run as a dry run first, show the user, then call again with confirm=true after explicit agreement. It also warns that the write scope is not granted by default, though it does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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