Redirect domains

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds the confirm=true requirement, but does not disclose additional side effects such as whether existing redirect rules are replaced or appended. 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the prerequisite and confirmation requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a destructive tool with 6 parameters, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and confirmation gate. It does not describe the return value or the effect on existing rules, but annotations and schema fill in safety and parameter details. Slightly more outcome detail would make it a 5.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds useful meaning by telling the agent to call list_proxy_locations first, which explains how to obtain proxyLocationId. The phrase 'matching domains' also clarifies the hostnames parameter. It does not add detail for comment or expiresInMinutes, but those are either defaulted or described in the schema.

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 states 'Redirect matching domains through a Control D proxy location,' which is a specific verb, resource, and mechanism. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_block_rules and create_bypass_rules.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Use list_proxy_locations first,' providing a clear prerequisite for choosing the proxyLocationId. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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