Create a Redirect

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

Annotations already indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it requires the Redirection plugin to be active, requires admin rights, and mentions the SEO effect ('search authority transfers'). No contradiction with annotations.

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 well structured: a concise one-sentence purpose, usage guidance, prerequisites, and a clear Args list. It is slightly long due to the full parameter enumeration, but the readability is high and each section earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's 7 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that don't cover all behavioral aspects, the description covers the use case, prerequisites, parameter semantics, and return value ('Returns: the created redirect'). It doesn't describe error scenarios or duplicate handling, but for a creation tool this is reasonably complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The text's Args list largely restates the schema descriptions (e.g., source, target, code defaults), adding only minor value such as example paths and the semantic note about SEO authority. It does not meaningfully augment the schema's parameter explanations.

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 opens with 'Create a 301 (or 302/307/308) redirect in the Redirection plugin,' a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's action. It distinguishes itself from the sibling wp_list_redirects by emphasizing creation, and the title 'Create a Redirect' reinforces the purpose.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use after any slug change or page re-parenting so the old URL keeps working and search authority transfers.' It also lists prerequisites ('Requires the Redirection plugin to be active and admin rights'), but does not mention explicit alternatives or when not to use, which keeps it from a 5.

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