fix_up_redirectors

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool updates consumers and deletes stubs, indicating destructive behavior. However, it does not mention reversibility, partial failures, or safety of re-running.

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?

Three sentences with zero fluff. First sentence states action, second specifies context, third relates to editor. Information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and a single parameter, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, usage, and parameter rationale. Missing details like error handling or idempotency, but sufficient for a simple tool.

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%, but the description adds context: 'Required to avoid accidentally rewriting an entire project.' This provides safety rationale beyond the schema's parameter description.

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 tool's action: cascade-update consumers of UObjectRedirector assets and delete stubs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like bulk_fix_redirectors by specifying it operates under a folder. The verb 'fix_up' and resource 'redirectors' are explicit.

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 explicitly states when to use: after move_asset/rename_asset workflows. It also mirrors editor functionality. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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