mcp-seo-audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('Delete') but doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, confirmation prompts, or what happens after deletion (e.g., if it's reversible). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter explanations in a clean Args section. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it highly scannable and efficient.

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?

Given this is a destructive tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. However, it lacks important contextual details about permissions, consequences, and error conditions that would be expected for a deletion operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic meaning for both parameters ('Exact GSC property URL' and 'Full URL of the sitemap to delete'), adding value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format examples or validation rules, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 specific action ('Delete (unsubmit)') and resource ('a sitemap from Google Search Console'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'submit_sitemap' and 'get_sitemaps'. It uses precise terminology that differentiates this destructive operation from read-only alternatives.

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 usage when needing to remove a sitemap from GSC, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'delete_site' or 'request_removal', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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