ecp_domains_remove_redirect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Remove a domain's redirect.' It does not disclose whether this is destructive to the redirect configuration, whether it affects the domain itself, whether it requires the domain to currently have a redirect, or what the response/return value looks like. For a mutation operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Remove' and the resource. It could arguably include more context, but for what it says, it is efficient and clear.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but leaves out important context: what happens to the domain after redirect removal, whether the operation is idempotent, and what the expected result is. The sibling ecp_domains_set_redirect exists, so an agent would benefit from knowing the relationship. The description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke this tool without additional assumptions.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'domain' parameter. The description mentions 'a domain's redirect', which implies the 'domain' parameter identifies the domain whose redirect should be removed. However, it does not specify the expected format (e.g., domain name with or without protocol, subdomain handling, etc.). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare parameter name.

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 'Remove a domain's redirect.' clearly states the verb (remove) and resource (a domain's redirect). It distinguishes itself from the sibling ecp_domains_set_redirect, which is the inverse operation, and from ecp_domains_delete, which removes a domain entirely. However, it does not explicitly name these siblings or elaborate on what 'redirect' means in this context.

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 implies usage: call this when you want to remove a redirect that was previously set on a domain. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus ecp_domains_set_redirect or ecp_domains_delete, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., domain must exist, redirect must exist). The context is clear enough for a simple operation, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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