Delete sitemaps across sites

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavior: the 100-item cap, per-target partial-failure semantics ('Each target reports success or its Google API error'), and the required 'webmasters OAuth scope'. It does not explicitly warn that deletion is irreversible, but the destructive verb plus detailed error-reporting behavior make this a strong disclosure overall.

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 sentences, each earning its place: scope/limit, error handling, and auth requirement. No filler, no repetition of schema content, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 nested-array delete tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers the essentials: batch cap, per-target error reporting, and auth. But it leaves the siteUrl/feedpath value formats unexplained and says nothing about response shape or what happens on total failure. Adequate for invocation, incomplete for confident use on unfamiliar data.

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 partially does: 'submitted sitemap URLs' maps to feedpath and 'properties' maps to siteUrl, giving conceptual meaning to the nested object fields. However, it omits format requirements such as whether siteUrl expects a full URL or 'sc-domain:' prefix, and whether feedpath is a path or full URL. Meaningful but incomplete compensation for the schema gap.

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 ('Delete'), a precise resource ('submitted sitemap URLs'), and a clear batch scope ('up to 100... across multiple Search Console properties'). This cleanly separates it from the singular gsc_delete_sitemap and the inverse gsc_batch_submit_sitemaps without opening either schema.

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 phrase 'across multiple Search Console properties' and the 'up to 100' limit imply the batching use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. It never names gsc_delete_sitemap as the alternative for a single deletion, nor does it state what to do when more than 100 targets need deleting. Usage context is inferable but not stated.

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