delete_property

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further and clarifies the blast radius: the property can be re-added later and historical data held by Google is NOT erased. That is exactly the kind of scope-of-destruction context the annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then the routing guidance. 'The property can be added back later' and 'call add_property to register the site again' overlap slightly on reversibility, but each otherwise 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 single-parameter destructive mutation with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, trigger, reversibility, data-retention scope, and alternatives — everything an agent needs to call it correctly and route around it when appropriate.

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% for the single siteUrl parameter, including the sc-domain: format example, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format guidance beyond what the schema provides — the correct baseline when 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?

States a specific verb (remove) and resource (Google Search Console property from the authenticated account site list), which distinguishes it cleanly from sibling mutations like delete_sitemap and add_property. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('when the user explicitly asks to drop a property') and names two alternatives with their selection conditions: delete_sitemap for withdrawing a sitemap and add_property for re-registering the site. Nothing is left to inference.

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