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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnly=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds the non-null-only merge rule, which is genuinely useful context, but it does not clarify the destructive aspect (e.g., slug change breaking live links) or the both-locators-optional ambiguity.

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 with zero filler, and the lookup mechanism is front-loaded before the update rule. Slightly under-specified rather than over-long, which costs little here.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations on auth, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is thin. It omits what the editable fields mean, whether both locators are required or one suffices, and what a successful response contains.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only names the two locator fields and gestures at the rest; it says nothing about slug format, redirect type values, or URL constraints, leaving the four editable-field params undocumented everywhere.

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: edit an existing seliee_redirect, with the lookup keys named. An agent can distinguish it from create_redirect/delete_redirect/get_redirect by name and verb, though sibling differentiation isn't spelled out.

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 sentence 'Only non-null fields are updated' communicates partial-update semantics, which implies usage (pass only what you want changed). However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_redirect or delete_redirect, and no statement of what happens if neither locator is supplied.

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