Create domain forwarding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by explaining it sets up redirects, but it does not disclose side effects like whether existing forwardings are overwritten, or any permission requirements. It neither contradicts nor significantly enriches the 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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second clarifies the purpose, with no redundant information. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple (3 required params, no output schema), but the description lacks important context such as whether the domain must be owned/verified, what happens if the domain already has a forwarding, or what the response will be. It does not reference the existence of related endpoints like update or delete. Given its simplicity, a minimal description is acceptable, but there is room for more practical guidance.

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?

The input schema fully documents all three parameters (domain, redirect_url, redirect_type) with descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional meaning about parameter values or formats, such as explaining the difference between 301 and 302 redirects, which is left to the enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create domain forwarding configuration') and the resource, and clarifies it's about setting up domain redirects. It distinguishes from get/update/delete by virtue of the verb 'create', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the update variant. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's core function.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like domains_updateDomainForwardingV1 or websites redirect tools. It merely restates that it is for setting up redirects, which is the purpose, not usage context. No mention of prerequisites, conflicts, or when the update endpoint should be used instead.

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