remove_sitemap

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait: removing the sitemap submission does not delete the actual file. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, irreversibility, or what happens if the sitemap was not previously submitted, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single sentence that states the action, the scope, and an important caveat without any filler. Every part of the sentence adds value, and the caveat is placed at the end where it cleanly qualifies the operation.

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 tool with only two parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation. The schema documents the parameters, and the description conveys the operation's purpose and its key non-destructive caveat. It could be enriched by mentioning response behavior or prerequisites, but the current combination of schema and description is adequate.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (feedUrl and siteUrl), including the default for siteUrl, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but none is needed because the schema already documents both parameters adequately.

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') with a specific resource ('a submitted sitemap') and scopes it to Bing Webmaster Tools. The parenthetical 'does not delete the file' further clarifies the boundary of the operation, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from a destructive file deletion.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when a previously submitted sitemap needs to be removed from Bing Webmaster Tools. It also gives an explicit non-effect ('does not delete the file'), which helps prevent misuse. It does not name sibling tools or describe when to prefer list_sitemaps or submit_sitemap, but the usage context is clear.

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