Remove a property from Search Console

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

Annotations already flag destructive and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds that other owners retain access and that the removal is irreversible for this account until re-added and re-verified, which goes beyond the annotation flags and provides useful context.

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?

Two concise sentences, both essential. The first states the core action and immediate consequence; the second delivers the irreversibility warning. No wasted words and information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter delete operation with annotations covering destructive behavior, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: account-level access loss, impact on other owners, and irreversibility. It is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the confirm constraint and siteUrl example are already documented).

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 action: removing a property from the authorized account, and specifies the consequence that the account loses access while other owners keep theirs. This is distinct from sibling tools like gsc_add_site or gsc_list_sites, and the title reinforces the purpose.

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 implies when to use it (to remove a property) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like gsc_delete_sitemap or note conditions for use. The irreversibility warning serves as a caution, but there is no explicit 'when not to use' or comparison to related tools.

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