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

Annotations already cover safety (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description adds a real side effect the annotations cannot express: the redesign review flag clears once the redirect is changed. It does not say whether at least one of from/to/status must be supplied or what happens if a value conflicts with an existing redirect.

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 tight sentences: the mutation and its scope come first, the side effect second. No filler or restated annotation text.

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 mutation tool with no output schema but full annotation coverage, the description covers identity, mutable fields, and the key post-condition. The remaining gap is the partial-update contract (which fields must be present, whether an empty change is valid).

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does by glossing `from` as 'old address' and `to` as 'destination', clarifying update vs. the raw field names. It leaves the status enum (301/302/307/308) unexplained and does not address the partially-optional field set.

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 ('Change one redirect') plus the exact scope of mutation (from, to, or status), which distinguishes it from add_redirects, remove_redirects and test_redirect. It even tells the agent where the id comes from (list_redirects).

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?

The '(from list_redirects)' parenthetical gives the prerequisite workflow step, and the note about a flagged redesign row implies this tool is the fix path for review-flagged redirects. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions (e.g. bulk edits vs remove_redirects).

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