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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context: reachability changes, broken bookmarks/links/signatures, email forwarding stopping by default, and a directive to inform the customer first. It also discloses staging copies are rejected, response semantics (unverified vs. success), and that prior list unavailability does not mean the redirect is absent.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, alternative, and parameter requirements, then consequences, staging exclusions, and response behavior. It is long, but each sentence adds a warning or constraint that is relevant for a destructive operation; it could be slightly tightened but is appropriately structured.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description fully explains response behavior (explicit confirmation when removed, unverified when the list is unavailable, and no change when the list was already unavailable). Combined with consequences, validation, and staging exclusions, an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool safely.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that either redirect_id or source_domain is accepted and both are checked server-side against this subscription's redirects, with guessed or foreign input rejected before removal. This is useful validation context not captured in the field descriptions.

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 ('Hebt ... auf') and resource ('Domain-Weiterleitung'), and emphasizes removing exactly one at a time. It distinguishes itself from the sibling redirect_domain ('der Weg zurück zu redirect_domain') and points to get_domain_redirects for IDs. An agent can immediately tell this is the removal counterpart.

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 an explicit scenario ('etwa wenn versehentlich die falsche Domain weitergeleitet wurde') and names the alternative redirect_domain for re-establishing a redirect. It adds prerequisites (domain with hosting plus either redirect_id or source_domain) and states that server-side validation rejects guessed or foreign input before anything is removed.

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