add_site

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, error conditions, or verification steps. The only added behavioral trait is the exact-match URL constraint, which is more of a parameter validation detail than a behavioral trait. The tool mutates state, but no safety or auth information is provided.

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, with one sentence for the primary purpose and one for parameter details. No unnecessary words, and the structure is clean. It front-loads the core action and then provides necessary input clarifications.

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 simple one-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the critical input format completely. It does not explain success/failure responses, but the output schema likely handles that. Given the low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete, though a note about verification requirements would have improved it further.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by specifying the exact URL format and providing examples for both URL-prefix and domain properties ('sc-domain:example.com'). It also clarifies that the match must be exact, which is not obvious from the schema. Since schema coverage is 0%, this parameter description is essential and well-executed, though it could have explained trailing-slash handling more explicitly.

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 tool's function: 'Add a site to your Search Console properties.' This is a specific verb + resource that distinguishes it from siblings like delete_site or list_properties. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 implies usage by saying 'Add a site to your Search Console properties,' which makes it clear this is for adding properties. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'To remove a site, use delete_site') or when not to use this tool. The usage context is present but not elaborated.

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