Delete Sitemap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the key non-obvious trait: removing the sitemap from GSC does not delete the actual sitemap file. It does not mention permission requirements or irreversibility, but for a simple delete tool this caveat is the most important behavior and is well covered.

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 sentences with no filler. The action is stated first, followed immediately by a critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it states what is removed, where, and what is not removed. It lacks explicit usage guidance and edge-case context, but nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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% and both required parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a sitemap from GSC'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling delete_site and from the sitemap-management siblings. The added clarification that it does not delete the actual file further sharpens the resource boundary.

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: when removing a sitemap from Google Search Console without touching the hosted file. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions such as 'use list_sitemaps to find the feed_path' or 'use submit_sitemap to add one.'

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