Link project to property

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key side effect: it writes a file at .gsc-connect.json in the project root and explicitly notes it contains no secrets, which is meaningful for an agent reasoning about security. It stops short of stating whether an existing link is overwritten, what happens if the property is not verified, or what the call returns.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the effect and a tight parenthetical for the file-write detail. No filler.

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 single-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. The only real omission is return/confirmation behavior and overwrite semantics, which are minor.

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% and the single parameter's own description ('exactly as gsc_list_sites returns it') already carries the critical format guidance. The prose adds only the general notion of 'which property', so the baseline 3 applies.

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: persisting which Search Console property a website project uses. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like gsc_connect or gsc_add_site, which an agent might reasonably confuse with 'link property'.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description suggests this is the step that records the chosen property for a project, but it never says when to call it versus gsc_connect, gsc_add_site, or gsc_status, nor whether it must follow a successful connect.

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