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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: both domains must be turbopress-hosted, and the operation fails cleanly in Plesk if source_domain already has active hosting, which must first be cancelled. This is valuable operational context beyond the annotations.

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 packed sentences with the main action front-loaded, followed by prerequisites and failure behavior. No filler, though the inline example in the first sentence is slightly redundant with the schema descriptions.

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 action, prerequisites, and failure mode, which is what an agent needs. It leaves out what the response returns, but no output schema exists and the mutation outcome is implied to be a configured redirect.

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% and both parameters are fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces which domain is 'old' vs 'new' with an inline example, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Richtet eine HTTP-Weiterleitung von einer Domain auf eine andere ein') and contrasts with get_domain_redirects/remove_domain_redirect/fix_https_redirect by framing it as creating a redirect rather than reading, removing, or fixing one. An agent can distinguish it from its siblings immediately.

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 concrete usage scenario ('nach einem Domain-Wechsel') and the precondition that both domains must be the customer's own turbopress hosting products. It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as fix_https_redirect, but the context is clear enough to select correctly.

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