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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is structured. The description adds genuine value with the permission requirement and blog-scoped key support, but for a destructive mutation it omits key behavior: whether unspecified fields are left untouched (partial vs. full update), and the consequences of changing source_path on existing links.

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 what changes, then prerequisites. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing 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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to cover purpose and prerequisites, which it does. The main residual gap is partial-update semantics for a destructive mutation, but overall it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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% and every parameter carries its own guidance (e.g. 'starting with a single /', status code 301/302 consts). The description merely restates the field list without adding format, default, or interaction details, so the baseline 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Update a redirect') and enumerates the mutable fields (source, destination, status code, active state), so an agent can distinguish it from create_redirect, delete_redirect, and get_redirect. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 second sentence gives a real usage constraint ('Requires manageBlog permission on the target blog') plus API-key scoping notes, which helps an agent decide if the call will succeed. However, it never states when to choose this over create_redirect vs. update_page, nor any when-not conditions, so usage is only implied.

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