Delete a sitemap

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

Even though destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false are in annotations, the description adds valuable context: Googles stops reading it but the file is untouched. This shapes the agent's expectation of the side effect and distinguishes it from deleting the file itself, going beyond the annotation flags.

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 waste. The first sentence states the action and effect immediately; the second gives the necessary prerequisite. Perfectly front-loaded and scannable.

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 destructive 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation: what it does, the side effect, and how to obtain the required parameter. The destructive annotation is further explained, and no critical details are 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 50% (siteUrl is described with an example; feedpath has only format uri). The description tells the user to get the 'exact feedpath' from gsc_list_sitemaps, adding meaning to feedpath, but does not fully elaborate its nature. It partially compensates for the coverage gap, so 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 states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('sitemap from a Search Console property') and clarifies the effect ('Google stops reading it; the file itself is untouched'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like gsc_delete_site and gsc_submit_sitemap by focusing on sitemap removal only.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use gsc_list_sitemaps first to get the exact feedpath', providing a clear prerequisite and pointing to the correct sibling tool. This gives the agent a step-by-step guidance and implies when not to call this tool (without checking the feedpath first).

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