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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the required OAuth scope and its failure mode, and by enumerating the error codes returned (missing_permission/not_found/rate_limited/auth_error/http_error) with the dict shape. This is exactly the extra context an agent needs for a destructive remote mutation.

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?

Front-loads the action and its write-ness, then layers preconditions, argument sourcing, verification, and error format in short scannable lines. No sentence is filler, and the highest-risk information comes first.

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 destructive 2-param mutation on an external API, it covers the auth requirement, the exact source for the required argument, post-deletion verification, and the error contract — while the output schema handles return structure. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description has to carry both parameters — and it does: sitemap_url is pinned to the exact 'path' value from sc_list_sitemaps, and workspace is described as a customer slug that is optional when only one workspace exists, which explains a non-obvious default. Slight gap on whether the value is a full URL or a path fragment.

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+resource ('Sitemap-URL aus Google Search Console entfernen') that unambiguously separates it from sc_submit_sitemap and sc_list_sitemaps in the sibling set. It immediately labels itself a write operation, so an agent can classify it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions (webmasters write scope, renew in portal if missing) and a named source for the argument (sc_list_sitemaps) plus a named follow-up verification step. It stops short of an explicit exclusion statement, but the routing to sc_list_sitemaps for both input and confirmation effectively covers the main alternative.

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