Remove a sitemap

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

Annotations already establish destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior beyond those annotations: the tool does not delete immediately and instead requires a two-step confirmation flow. The confirm_token schema text adds token semantics ('previous refusal', 'cannot be guessed or reused') that meaningfully explain the safety mechanism.

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 zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the critical two-step caveat immediately follows so the agent is warned before invoking. Every word earns its place.

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 moderately complex destructive tool, the essential non-obvious behavior (two-step confirmation) is disclosed, all three parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema, annotations cover destructiveness and idempotency, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Slight gap: no explicit statement about what happens on the first call's outcome beyond receiving a token, but the parameter description covers this adequately.

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 carries the full load: feedpath, site_url with exact format examples and the trailing-slash rule, and confirm_token with its workflow. The main description adds the two-step context that motivates confirm_token's existence, but the schema already explains this parameter's purpose in detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Removes a sitemap from the property.' This clearly differentiates it from the sibling delete_site (removes a site, not a sitemap) and from submit_sitemap/list_sitemaps/get_sitemap, which operate on sitemaps in different ways. The two-step flow detail further pins down what the tool does.

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 clear procedural guidance for how to invoke the tool correctly: call once to receive a confirmation token, then again to perform removal. The confirm_token parameter description reinforces this ('Call without it first to see what would happen and receive the token'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions relative to siblings like delete_site or submit_sitemap.

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