setup_gsc_access

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: only file PATHS are stored (never key contents), and `save` persists paths to config.json so they survive restarts — meaningful side-effect and privacy context.

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?

Opens with the action and its key constraint (no config edits, no restart), then a compact Args block. Every line carries information; nothing is padded or repeated from the schema verbatim without added meaning.

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?

Complete enough for an agent to call it: side effects (config.json persistence), security (paths only), and the interactive fallback are all covered, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. It stops short of saying whether credentials are validated on the spot or what happens on failure.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: every one of the five parameters is explained, including that auth_method is auto-detected from the file if omitted, that credential params are absolute paths, and that save defaults to true.

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: configuring/repairing Google Search Console access, done 'in-chat, without editing config files or restarting'. It's clearly a setup/repair tool rather than a data-reading one, though it never names the related sibling `reauthenticate`, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 explicit usage modes: pass values directly, or call with no arguments when the client supports interactive prompts. That covers the main invocation patterns and implies the 'access is broken or unconfigured' trigger, but it offers no exclusions and does not contrast with `reauthenticate`.

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