hosting_deleteWebsiteRedirectV1

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'Permanently deletes', indicating irreversibility—a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or error handling, which a destructive operation might warrant. The guidance on using the exact from value is useful but does not fully cover the behavioral context.

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 two sentences long, immediately lists the action, and provides a crucial usage hint without any fluff. Every word contributes to clarity, making it exemplary in conciseness and structure.

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 the simple nature of the operation (a delete with 3 required params), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what is deleted, how to identify it, and that it is permanent. It does not elaborate on error cases or success behavior, but for this level of complexity, it is sufficiently complete—leaving only minor gaps such as idempotency or prerequisites beyond fetching the from value.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds a specific nuance for the 'from' parameter by emphasizing that it must be passed exactly as returned by the list endpoint, which goes slightly beyond the schema's plain description. For 'username' and 'domain', the description adds nothing new, relying on the schema's minimal phrasing. Overall, it provides moderate added value but 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 states a specific action ('permanently deletes') with a clear resource ('redirect') and scope ('identified by its source URL'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create/list tools, and the verb 'deletes' leaves no ambiguity about its 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 implies when to use it (to delete a redirect) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides a practical prerequisite ('Pass the from value exactly as returned by the list redirects endpoint'), which helps in understanding the workflow, but lacks explicit differentiation from create or update redirect tools.

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