add_site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a write/mutation operation, any authentication or verification requirements, or potential side effects (e.g., whether the site appears immediately, whether duplicate adds are rejected). The description simply states the action without revealing behavioral traits.

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 concise and includes a structured Args section. It avoids unnecessary fluff while providing essential parameter details. The only minor issue is the mixed format (docstring-style with prose), but it remains easy to parse and front-loaded with the core 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?

For a tool with a single parameter and no complex return values, the description covers the main aspects: what it does and how to specify the parameter. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which would make it more complete. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but additional context about prerequisites or side effects is still missing.

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 only provides 'site_url' as a string with no additional meaning. The description significantly adds value by explaining the exact-match requirement and providing concrete examples for both standard URLs and domain properties (sc-domain:). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 ('Add a site') and the target resource ('your Search Console properties'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_site and list_properties by using the specific verb 'add'.

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 context implicitly suggests when to use this tool (to add a new property), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. There are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions, leaving some ambiguity about scenarios where adding might not be appropriate.

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