add_site

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses critical non-obvious behavior: the property remains unverified and yields no data until ownership is proven, and adding an existing property is a no-op rather than an error. This gives the agent expectations that are not derivable from the schema or annotations alone.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the primary action is front-loaded, followed by the critical caveat and the idempotent no-op behavior. Every sentence contributes essential operational knowledge.

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 registration tool with two well-documented parameters, the description fully covers the workflow context by naming the exact verification follow-up tools. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the key agent-facing concern is the unverified state, which is explicitly disclosed.

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 parameter descriptions for site and account are rich, including URL vs domain property shapes and trailing-slash conventions. The main description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema itself carries the semantic burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Register a property in Search Console'), making the core action unmistakable. It further differentiates itself from verification siblings by stating 'This only adds it' and referencing get_verification_token and verify_site as follow-ups, so the agent cannot confuse it with other property-related tools.

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 clear context for use: it registers a property and explains that verification is separate, instructing to follow with get_verification_token and verify_site. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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