Add a property

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

Even with annotations available (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds substantial behavioral context: the property starts UNVERIFIED with a specific permission level, data calls will 403 until verification, success returns an empty API response, and the required OAuth scope is stated. This goes well beyond annotation signals.

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, tightly packed paragraph that front-loads the action and then efficiently delivers critical caveats (verification, response shape, scope requirement). Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the expected success response and the unverified-state behavior. It covers the mutation, prerequisites, failure modes, and permissions, making it complete for a one-parameter tool with good annotations.

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 for the single parameter (site_url) is 100%, including format examples and error notes. The tool description itself does not repeat or add parameter-level detail, so it does not elevate above the schema's already-complete documentation. A 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 opens with 'Adds a property to the account's Search Console set,' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_sites, get_site, and delete_site. It also immediately conveys the key scope of the operation.

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 robust usage guidance: it states that adding a property is not sufficient for data access, explicitly notes that verification happens through the UI or a separate API, warns that most data calls will return 403 until verified, and clarifies that the readonly OAuth scope cannot mutate. These are clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use directives.

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