delete_sitemap

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond the annotations: 'Removing the sitemap does not drop its URLs from the Google index,' which corrects a likely misconception. It stops short of permissions/auth detail, so not a 5.

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, front-loaded with the action, followed by the usage condition, the key caveat, and sibling routing. No filler.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, the index-persistence caveat, and sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (siteUrl, feedpath) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Withdraw a previously submitted sitemap from a Google Search Console property.' This clearly distinguishes it from submit_sitemap and list_sitemaps without opening their schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger ('when the user asks to remove a stale, duplicated, or broken sitemap') and routes to the correct alternatives: submit_sitemap to re-file and list_sitemaps to review what remains. Both when-to-use and sibling disambiguation are present.

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