sitemaps_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it deletes a sitemap, but does not mention consequences (e.g., irreversibility), permission requirements, error behavior, or how the operation affects both engines depending on the 'engine' parameter. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool.

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 a single, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with three parameters, all documented in the schema. However, without an output schema or annotations, the description leaves gaps about return values, side effects, and behavior when 'engine' is 'all'. It is adequate but not fully complete for a destructive operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal value by naming the two engines (Google Search Console, Bing Webmaster Tools) which aligns with the 'engine' parameter enum, but does not elaborate on feedUrl or siteUrl beyond what the schema already provides.

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 sitemap') and the resource ('from Google Search Console or Bing Webmaster Tools'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sitemaps_list and sitemaps_submit. The verb is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when deleting a sitemap) and mentions both target engines. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it, though the destructive nature of the operation makes the use case fairly evident.

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