delete_sitemap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It labels the tool as 'destructive', which alerts to mutation, but lacks details on irreversibility, side effects, or what happens upon deletion. Some additional behavioral context would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one warning about destructiveness. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded.

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 simple delete tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It tells what it does and warns about destructiveness. However, it could mention the response or that deletion is immediate, making it slightly more 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (siteUrl and feedpath) fully (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the action (delete a submitted sitemap) and the scope (from Search Console). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like submit_sitemap or list_sitemaps by specifying the destructive nature and the context of explicit request.

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 says 'use only when explicitly requested', providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, missing some comparative guidance.

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