Create analytics property

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the siteKey is disclosed exactly once, it cannot be re-read, and the recovery path is named. It also resolves a cost question ('Does not use credits') and documents the 409 collision behavior. Annotations only give the generic non-idempotent/non-destructive profile, so this description carries real additional weight.

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 dense sentences, zero filler. The irreversible one-time-siteKey warning is front-loaded right after the action statement, which is exactly where an agent's attention should land.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the outcome (siteKey returned once), the collision error, cost, and recovery. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly and handle the response 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 description coverage is 100%, with hostname, projectId, and projectUuid all documented in the schema itself (including the alternative-to-projectId relationship). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond implying the hostname feeds the tracking snippet, 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+resource ('Create the analytics property for a project'), names the exact endpoint, and describes the key artifact returned (the site key for the tracking snippet). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like analytics_get_property and analytics_rotate_key.

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 the triggering condition (project needs a property), the failure case a caller must handle (409 property_exists with propertyId), and the recovery alternative (analytics_rotate_key mints a fresh key). It stops short of an explicit 'do not call this if a property already exists' routing statement, but the error semantics effectively convey it.

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