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

Annotations declare destructive/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds what those hints cannot: exactly what is destroyed (the path reverts to a 404) and the gating behavior with a named error code and remediation pointer. That is substantive behavioral disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the effect, then prerequisites, then a compact Args/Returns block. Each sentence carries distinct information with no filler, and the absence of an output schema makes the Returns line earn its space.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect, prerequisites, failure mode, parameter provenance, and return shape. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and interpret the result.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description's redirect_id note ('from helpcenter_list_redirects') duplicates the schema text almost verbatim, and agent_key — including its credential-handling warning — is not mentioned at all, so no meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 precise verb and resource ('Delete a redirect') and immediately names the consequence — the path falls through to the help center's not-found page. That outcome detail separates it from the creation/listing siblings (create_redirect, bulk_create_redirects, list_redirects) without needing to name them.

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?

Gives real usage context: the account-state prerequisites (claimed help center, verified email, active plan) and what happens before they are met (capability_locked with the next step, also visible via helpcenter_get_help_center). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when to prefer a different removal tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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