remove_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the action and that an error is raised on failure, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or impact on other data. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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 concise and well-structured with an Args and Raises section. It front-loads the purpose and includes only relevant information. No extraneous content.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema details, the description is incomplete. It omits prerequisites (site must be verified, feed must exist), potential side effects, and return behavior. An agent would lack information needed to call it safely and correctly.

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 schema provides zero description coverage, so the description must define the parameters. It does give one-line definitions for both site_url and feed_url, which clarifies their purpose, but lacks detail on format or validation. It adds some meaning but does not fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Remove') and the resource ('previously submitted sitemap feed'), making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like remove_site or remove_blocked_url, but the resource is specific enough to avoid confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., the site must be verified, the feed must have been submitted via submit_feed). It simply states the action without context.

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