gsc_verify_site

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

Annotations already declare it is not read-only, is idempotent, and is non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it presupposes the token is already published and clarifies that property creation is out of scope. It does not describe failure modes (e.g., what happens if the token is not yet present or verification fails), which keeps it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, then the trigger, then the negative scope. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; 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?

The tool is a simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema. The description supplies the prerequisite chain and the sibling boundary, which are the only things the structured fields don't already say. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 method enum is documented inline, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description mentions the four verification modes in the usage sentence but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema already provides. 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 ('Record Google site ownership') with scope ('for a URL or a domain') and explicitly separates itself from the sibling add_property by saying it does not add the property. An agent can distinguish it from get_verification_token and add_property without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('use when the user says the file, DNS record, meta tag, or Analytics tag is published'), a prerequisite stage ('call gsc_get_verification_token first if they do not have a token yet'), and a negative boundary ('this does not add the Search Console property; call add_property for that'). Nothing is left to inference.

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