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

Adds genuine side-effect and constraint detail beyond the annotations: passing brokenLinkId 'also marks the broken link fixed', and targets must resolve to an existing page or redirects into a 404 are refused. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements, but the annotations already cover the safety and idempotency profile.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the preferred path, then the constraint. Every sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information.

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?

With an output schema handling return values and 100% schema description coverage, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: the two input strategies, the side effect, and the refusal condition. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: brokenLinkId originates from list_broken_links and applies to internal links only, and that it is the preferred input over path. This contextualizes parameter choice, not just format.

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 ('Create a Shopify URL redirect') and anchors it to a concrete workflow by naming list_broken_links as the source of brokenLinkId. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like replace_link or flatten_redirect_chain at a glance.

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?

Explicitly ranks two invocation modes ('Preferred: pass brokenLinkId... Or pass path + target directly') and names the prerequisite source tool. It also states the routing/validation condition under which creation is refused, so the agent knows both when and how to call it.

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