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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive mutation. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the prerequisite that both domains be turbopress-hosted, and the disclosed failure mode that setup fails cleanly on the Plesk side when source_domain still has its own active hosting (which must be abandoned first). It does not describe the success response, but annotations already carry the safety 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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the example, then the requirements and failure behavior. Sentences are dense but each carries information; slightly long, but no filler.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, ownership constraints, and the key failure mode, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not state the expected success outcome, a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the source (old) / target (new hosting) relationship with an inline example, which mildly reinforces the schema but adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (einrichten) and resource (HTTP-Weiterleitung von Domain A auf Domain B) and includes a concrete example (alte-domain.de → neue-domain.de). The action is clearly distinct from get_domain_redirects and remove_domain_redirect, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it lands just short of the top mark.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use scenario (after a domain change) and a when-not constraint (a domain not hosted with turbopress cannot be redirected this way), plus the requirement that both domains be the customer's own hosting products. Alternatives such as add_dns_record or fix_https_redirect are not named, 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.