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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine consequence detail beyond that — the old address falls through to a not-found page unless the site has a page there, and visitors/search ranking are lost. It doesn't state per-item failure behavior or whether the call is all-or-nothing across up to 1000 items, which is the remaining gap for a bulk destructive tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the mechanics and followed by the consequence that justifies the warning. No restatement of the title or annotations, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 bulk mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: how to identify targets, where ids come from, and why to confirm first. Partial-failure semantics and the optional user_goal field are the only notable omissions.

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 75%, so the baseline is already 3, and the description meaningfully adds by establishing that the operation takes EITHER redirect ids OR old addresses — a mutual-exclusivity/at-least-one constraint the schema doesn't express (only site_id is required). The id source (list_redirects) and the user_goal parameter are not addressed, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 ("Remove redirects") plus the two supported addressing modes (by id or by old address). An agent can immediately distinguish it from add_redirects, update_redirect, test_redirect, and list_redirects without opening any schema.

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?

It names the two valid invocation paths (ids obtained from list_redirects, or old addresses) and provides an explicit behavioral gate: "Confirm with the user first." It does not name an explicit alternative tool or a when-not condition, so it stops short of 5.

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