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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Replace' and the schema's 'Pass the full list' semantics. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations — 'evaluated server-side before render' — clarifying when rules take effect.

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 core verb+resource and zero filler. Every clause carries information.

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, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description adequately covers replace semantics, evaluation timing, and path/destination format. It stops short of noting the 500-item cap or permission needs, but the annotations and schema cover the safety profile.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including site-relative 'from' and 'to' semantics. The description restates that paths are site-relative and destinations may be absolute URLs, adding only mild reinforcement over the schema baseline.

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: 'Replace the site's 301/302 redirect rules.' An agent can tell what the tool does, but the description does not differentiate it from related siblings like set_domain_redirect_mode or set_domain.

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 description says what it does but gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no distinction from the redirect-adjacent siblings. There is some implied usage from 'Replace,' but no explicit guidance or alternatives are offered.

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