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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds useful context: the exact field mutated, the starting state, and merchant-level scoping. Gaps remain: it never explains why publishing is flagged destructive (e.g., does it replace a live redirect or affect traffic?), and 'sets ... to PUBLISH' reads as an idempotent set operation despite idempotentHint=false, which is left unclarified.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carrying the action, mutated field, initial state, and scope with no filler. The '[publish]' prefix tag is redundant with the tool name and title, the only slight waste.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics (what state it produces, whose data it touches) adequately. It stops short of what an agent needs for edge cases: the optional/optional identifier ambiguity, return behavior, and the reason for destructiveHint=true.

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% and both parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by showing 'redirect_id or redirect_uuid' are alternative identifiers, but it does not say whether at least one is required (required list is empty), which one wins if both are supplied, or what happens if neither is passed.

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 ('Publish a redirect') plus the concrete state transition (seliee_redirect_type set to PUBLISH, new redirects start as UNPUBLISH), and names the two accepted identifiers. An agent can distinguish it from create_redirect, edit_redirect, or delete_redirect without opening any schema.

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 note that new redirects start as UNPUBLISH implies when publishing is appropriate, and 'Scoped to the caller's merchant' gives a usage boundary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as edit_redirect for other field changes.

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