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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorld=true), so the description needn't restate that. It adds genuinely useful context about the permission requirement and blog-scoped API key support. However, it never addresses the destructiveHint — e.g. whether creating a redirect at a source_path that already has a redirect replaces it — which is the most consequential behavior for this tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the permission gate, then the auth-mode caveat. No filler; only slight question is whether the API-key sentence belongs in a per-tool description rather than shared docs.

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?

An output schema exists and parameters are fully covered, so the description only needs to carry the behavioral/permission story, which it does partially. For a tool annotated destructive and non-idempotent, the omission of collision/overwrite semantics leaves a meaningful gap.

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%: source_path rules, destination format, status_code enum and active default are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Create a redirect for a blog'), which distinguishes it from update_redirect, delete_redirect, get_redirect and list_redirects without opening any schema. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from siblings, but the CRUD verb carries that work.

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 supplies a prerequisite ('Requires manageBlog permission on the target blog') and an auth-mode note, which frames when the call will succeed. It gives no explicit when-to-use vs update_redirect guidance or when-not conditions, so usage is only implied by the verb.

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