add_property

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent, open-world write). The description adds real value beyond them: the required GSC_ALLOW_WRITE=1 environment flag and the caveat that verification occurs separately in Search Console, both of which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded. The parenthetical prerequisite is slightly disruptive but still efficient; no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the prerequisite plus verification caveat are covered. However, with a mutation tool and an undocumented required parameter, the description leaves the agent guessing about site_url format and no format examples are given.

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 single parameter site_url has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden but does nothing to clarify it – no format guidance (e.g., domain property vs URL-prefix syntax), which is a common source of error for GSC properties. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Add a property to this account'), which clearly distinguishes it from list_properties/get_property/remove_property siblings. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 purpose implies when to use it (creating a new property), and it notes that verification must still happen in Search Console, but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or what preconditions guarantee success beyond the env flag. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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