cf_create_redirect

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true; description adds valuable context about preflight target validation, loop/duplicate checks, and dry_run capability. 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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with core purpose, then safety features. Every sentence adds value.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, the description explains key behaviors (validation, loop/duplicate prevention, dry_run) and gating. Could mention return value structure, but overall sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, primarily mentioning dry_run's purpose. Does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 creates a single dynamic redirect at the Cloudflare edge, with an example (301 for renamed/migrated URL). It distinguishes from siblings like cf_bulk_redirect_upsert (bulk) and cf_list_redirects (list).

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?

Explicit gating condition (requires SEO_MCP_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true) and mentions validation, loop/duplicate refusal, and dry_run support. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternative tools like cf_bulk_redirect_upsert.

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