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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it targets only permanent (live) redirects, and it requires a read-then-delete sequence to obtain the current revision, hinting at optimistic concurrency. It does not say what happens on a stale revision or whether the deletion is recoverable.

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, zero waste, with the destructive scope stated before the procedural prerequisite. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the target and the required read-first workflow but omits failure behavior (revision mismatch), permission requirements, and whether the redirect is recoverable. Adequate to call correctly, but thin on the consequences of getting it wrong.

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 50%: the 'revision' parameter has a description ('Exact quoted redirect revision') while 'id' is blank. The phrase 'read its current revision first' adds useful meaning by implying the revision value must come from a prior read, which the schema does not state. The 'id' parameter gains nothing from the description.

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 and resource with a qualifier ('live permanent redirect') that narrows scope beyond the bare name. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives (create_redirect, update_redirect, get_redirect), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'only when requested' gives an explicit restriction on when not to invoke it, and 'Read its current revision first' prescribes a prerequisite step that points implicitly at get_redirect. There is no direct mention of the redirect-creation or update alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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