create_redirect

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It fails to disclose any side effects, such as whether an existing redirect is overwritten, whether validation occurs, or what happens on success or failure. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

The description is only one sentence and front-loaded, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified to the point of being terse—similar to 'Process' in the low example, though slightly better. It lacks substance, so it is minimal rather than appropriately sized.

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 create operation with 5 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides no operational context. It does not mention what the tool returns, any prerequisites, or post-conditions. The schema covers parameter syntax but not the overall business context, making the description inadequate.

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%, with every parameter having a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond naming the resource, but the schema fully documents parameters like path, type, domain, redirect_url, and redirect_wildcard. This is adequate.

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 'Create a URL redirect' uses a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('URL redirect'). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_redirects and delete_redirect, which have different verbs. 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or how it compares to alternatives. It does not mention when to choose permanent vs temporary redirects, wildcard behavior, or that the domain must already exist. This leaves the agent without critical selection context.

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