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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: partial-update semantics ('Omitted fields are preserved') and an optimistic-concurrency requirement via the revision. It does not explain what happens on a stale revision or the auth needs of a destructive write.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the usage gate and the prerequisite read front-loaded before the partial-update note.

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 and thin parameter docs, the description covers the key safety facts: only on request, read revision first, unspecified fields survive. Remaining gaps are conflict/stale-revision behavior and return values, which are secondary.

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 only 25% — id, to, and from have empty descriptions. The description partially compensates by explaining that omitted fields are preserved (implying to/from are optional) and that revision is a pre-read token, but it never clarifies what 'id' identifies or the from/to relationship.

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 ('Change') plus a precise resource ('a live permanent redirect'), which distinguishes it from create_redirect/delete_redirect and from update_content. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing.

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 when-to-use gate, and 'Read its current revision first' names the prerequisite read step. There is no explicit mention of the get_redirect sibling or a when-not-to-use case, keeping it below a 5.

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