add_property

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely valuable non-obvious trait: 'Adding a property does not verify it,' plus the ownership-proof workflow, which no annotation conveys. It stops short of describing return values or error conditions.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then trigger, then the crucial non-verification caveat, then the follow-up workflow. Four sentences, each carrying distinct information with no redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies what matters most: the non-verification caveat and the verification follow-up chain. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and guide the user's next step.

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% with a single parameter whose description already specifies the exact URL formats (e.g., "https://example.com/" or "sc-domain:example.com"). The description only loosely restates 'a site URL or a domain,' adding no format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('Register') and resource ('a site URL or a domain as a Google Search Console property'), naming the target system and account scope. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_property, list_properties, and gsc_verify_site.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger ('Use when the user asks to add a site to Search Console') and routes to the correct follow-up tools (gsc_get_verification_token, gsc_verify_site) and the alternative for viewing existing sites (list_properties). Both when-to-use and what-to-use-instead are covered.

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