delete_sitemap

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining exactly what is affected: submission history and per-sitemap coverage are lost, while the sitemap file and URL indexing are not. It also highlights the irreversible nature and the need for confirmation (confirm=true). This provides full transparency for a destructive operation.

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 concise and well-structured: it states the core action, clarifies what is not affected, notes what is lost, and instructs on confirmation. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers necessary context: the exact scope of impact, irreversibility, and the required confirmation flag. Combined with a rich parameter schema, an agent has all the information needed to invoke the tool safely and correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 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 action ('Stop tracking a sitemap on a property'), clearly identifies the resource, and explicitly distinguishes what the tool does not do (does not deindex URLs, does not delete the file). This makes it easy to differentiate from sibling tools like submit_sitemap or delete_site.

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 conveys the intended use (stopping tracking a sitemap) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or alternative tools. The context of the destructive operation is implied, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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