searchconsole.sites.add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the HTTP method, the read-only safety refusal, the return shape (API response resource as JSON), and the body-construction precedence between typed parameters, the params map, and body_file. It omits idempotency behavior and permission/ownership requirements, which matter for a write 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every subsequent fragment carries information (safety refusal, return shape, body handling, siblings). The single long em-dash-chained sentence is dense but not padded.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the safety profile, mutation semantics and return type an agent needs. Remaining gaps are the ownership-verification requirement and idempotency, which are relevant for a Search Console site addition but not fatal to correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents siteUrl, params, query, dry_run and body_file. The description's body-construction sentence mostly restates the schema's own 'typed parameters win' wording, adding little new meaning beyond emphasis on the precedence chain.

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 ('Adds a site to the set of the user's sites in Search Console') and explicitly enumerates the sibling operations on the same resource (delete, get, list), so an agent can distinguish it without opening other schemas. The HTTP PUT annotation further pins down the operation's semantics.

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 gives a clear when-not ('refused under --readonly safety profiles') and names the alternative siblings over the same resource, which implies the read path for lookup. It stops short of stating prerequisites such as site ownership verification, which would complete the routing picture.

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