remove_property

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things the annotations do not: the write-gate requirement (GSC_ALLOW_WRITE=1) and the crucial scope clarification that removal only detaches the property from this account while Google retains the data. That materially changes how an agent should reason about the destructive flag.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the gating constraint, with no filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the description covers the precondition and the data-retention nuance. The remaining gap is the undocumented site_url parameter, but for a single-argument tool the definition is nearly complete.

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% for the single required parameter site_url, and the description never explains the expected URL format, whether trailing slashes or protocol variants matter, or whether it must match an existing listed property. With low coverage the description is supposed to compensate and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a property from this account'), making the operation unambiguous and clearly distinct from add_property, list_properties, and get_property. It does not explicitly name when it differs from delete_sitemap, but the verb+resource pairing is precise enough to route correctly.

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 supplies a hard precondition ('needs GSC_ALLOW_WRITE=1'), which is real usage guidance, but it never says when to choose this over siblings like delete_sitemap or what happens if the property is still verified. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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