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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint not in the annotations: the "from" value must match exactly what list_redirects returned, which flags a fragility/risk of mismatch. It does not otherwise add context such as reversibility or side effects beyond what annotations state.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one thing the agent must get right. Zero filler, though the wording is terse enough that it reads more like a note than a full definition.

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 two-parameter, fully-required destructive tool with complete schema coverage and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description supplies the essential missing piece — that "from" must be copied verbatim from list_redirects. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It is adequate, if minimal.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the exact-match requirement for "from" and points at list_redirects as the source, but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema says ("as listed").

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 states a specific verb+resource in plain language ("Stop redirecting one old address"), which an agent can easily distinguish from the sibling add_redirect. The word "one" sets the single-item scope. It stops short of explicitly naming the counterpart tool or routes, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating beyond the obvious name contrast.

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?

"Pass 'from' exactly as list_redirects shows it" implies a workflow — call list_redirects first to obtain the exact value — which is useful implied usage guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of alternatives, prerequisites, or what condition makes removal appropriate.

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