Delete Sitemap

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description goes beyond this by adding a non-obvious behavioral nuance: removing the sitemap from tracking does not block crawling of its URLs. This is valuable context that the structured annotations cannot convey. It doesn't mention reversibility, but the destructive annotation already covers the risk profile.

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, no filler, and the key action is front-loaded. The clarifying second sentence earns its place because it prevents a dangerous misconception about crawling behavior.

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 the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and destructive annotation, the description covers the essential operational facts. It could additionally state that the action is irreversible or describe the response, but these are minor gaps for a low-complexity deletion tool.

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 the schema already documents both siteUrl and sitemapUrl adequately. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline expectation for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a sitemap from Search Console tracking'), and immediately clarifies an important boundary: it does not prevent Google from crawling discovered URLs. This clearly distinguishes the deletion from crawling-related behaviors and sibling tools like submit_sitemap.

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 makes the core usage context clear: use this when you want to stop tracking a sitemap in Search Console. It also provides an explicit exclusion by noting the tool does not stop Google from crawling URLs, which prevents a common misuse. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when another sibling would be more appropriate.

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