Delete a sitemap

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

Adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: the file is not deleted, discovery may still happen, success returns an empty response, and full OAuth scope is required. It could mention idempotency given the idempotentHint, but the disclosure is already strong.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and then the important caveats. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 simple destructive tool with two well-documented parameters, it covers the key aspects: purpose, side effects, authentication, and response format. It does not describe error scenarios or edge cases, but these are less critical given the idempotentHint and lack of output schema.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters, including detailed formats and error conditions for site_url. The description itself adds no parameter information, so baseline 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?

The description opens with 'Removes a sitemap from Search Console', using a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the action. It also distinguishes itself from deleting the actual file, differentiating it from similar sitemap tools like submit_sitemap or list_sitemaps.

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?

Provides clear context that this only removes the submission, not the file, and warns that Google may still discover it via robots.txt. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the usage scope is evident from the description.

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