redirects_create

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add useful context by marking confirm as required and describing impersonate as the owning user, hinting at a mutating operation with an ownership dimension. However, it does not disclose side effects, overwrite behavior, or whether the operation is reversible, which are significant for a write tool.

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?

A one-sentence purpose is followed by a terse, alphabetized Args list covering all six parameters. Every line adds information and there is no filler, making the definition easy to scan.

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?

All six parameters are documented and an output schema covers return values, which is good, but the description remains thin for a no-annotation mutation tool. It omits exactly what confirm must be set to, possible side effects on existing redirects, and any usage context, leaving an agent to infer or inspect further. This is adequate but not 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args block is the only source of parameter meaning, and it supplies useful semantics: path gets an example, destination is called a target URL, redirect_type lists the allowed values, and impersonate is explained as the owning user. It loses a point because domain is left as a bare 'Domain' and confirm only says 'Required' without stating the required value.

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 opening sentence 'Create a site redirect' names a specific action and resource, unambiguously distinguishing this tool from its only redirect-related sibling, redirects_list, which lists redirects. The resource type is clear enough that an agent can select it for creation operations without opening the schema.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided. The verb 'Create' and the sibling name redirects_list imply the division of labor, but the description itself does not state when this tool should be chosen over alternatives or what prerequisites are needed.

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