ecp_domains_set_redirect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what happens to existing redirects, whether the operation overwrites, side effects, or success/failure behavior. For a mutation tool 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, which is appropriately short. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing important details. It is not bloated, but it is also not fully developed to explain key aspects like parameter meanings or side effects.

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 is a mutation with zero annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent needs to know what a successful redirect entails, whether it replaces existing redirects, and any constraints (e.g., domain format). The current one-liner is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 explain the parameters. It only implies that 'redirect_target' is 'another URL' and mentions the example, but it does not clarify the meaning of 'permanent' vs 'temporary' for redirect_type, nor specify the format expected for the domain. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's raw names.

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 clearly states the action ('Redirect') and the resource ('a domain to another URL'), with a clarifying example ('www -> apex'). It is specific enough to understand the tool's function, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ecp_domains_remove_redirect, so it misses the chance to fully differentiate.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., when to remove a redirect or when to use a subdomain tool). It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts without exclusions.

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