Remove Sitemap

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds context the annotations cannot carry: that already-indexed URLs remain indexed after unsubmission, and that the WSP_ALLOW_WRITES=true environment flag is a hard prerequisite. Those two facts materially change an agent's risk calculus and failure handling, though propagation delay or whether removal is reversible is unstated.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: action first, side effect second, prerequisite third. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, residual effect, and the write-permission gate. A pointer to wsp_show_sitemaps_gsc for verification before removal would close the remaining gap.

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 100%, so both site_url and sitemap_url are already documented in the schema, including the domain-property nuance. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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?

"Unsubmit a sitemap" gives a specific verb and resource, and the word choice implicitly contrasts with the sibling wsp_add_sitemap_gsc. It stops short of explicitly naming the counterpart tool, so an agent still has to infer the pairing from the name alone.

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 the use case (removing a sitemap submission from GSC) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not point at wsp_show_sitemaps_gsc to first confirm the sitemap exists. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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