gsc_delete_sitemap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally well. It clarifies the scope of deletion ('only stops Google tracking'), explicitly states what it does NOT do ('does not deindex the URLs'), and discloses the dry-run behavior unless confirm=true.

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 front-load the core action and then add the two most important caveats. There is no filler or repetition; every sentence contributes essential information.

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?

The description covers the most critical behavioral aspects and an output schema exists, but the undocumented feedpath and site_url parameters leave a gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly. It is adequate but not fully complete for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the confirm parameter well ('dry run unless confirm=true'), but it does not explain feedpath or site_url, leaving the agent without clear guidance on how to identify the sitemap or scope the operation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a sitemap from Search Console.' It clearly conveys the destructive intent and is naturally distinguishable from sibling tools like gsc_submit_sitemap, gsc_list_sitemaps, and gsc_get_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 gives useful context about what the operation does and the confirm flag, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The dry-run behavior implies a safe verification workflow, but no direct guidance about verifying with gsc_get_sitemap or gsc_list_sitemaps is provided.

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