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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't say the deletion is irreversible, what happens to stats/history, or whether it errors when the redirect is missing.

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 with no filler. Nothing wastes space, though equally nothing is expanded where the tool needs it.

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 destructive, idempotent tool with no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should at minimum spell out the identifier requirement and irreversibility. As written it leaves the main caller-side risks unresolved.

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 nullable with zero required parameters, yet the description never explains that at least one identifier must be supplied, what happens if both or neither are given, or which takes precedence. The 'or' phrasing hints at mutual exclusivity but leaves the crucial validation rule unstated.

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 (delete) and resource (redirect) and scopes it to identifier-based deletion, which distinguishes it from get_redirect, edit_redirect and list_redirects. The odd entity string 'seliee_redirect' is slightly confusing but the intent is still 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. edit_redirect to disable) and no prerequisites or cautions before a destructive operation. The reader must infer that this is the permanent removal path.

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