delete_redirect

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further: it calls the operation irreversible, describes the resulting 404 behavior of the old URLs, and gives the return shape {deleted: <count>}. It does not mention permission requirements, which is the main remaining gap.

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 short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the destructive action and irreversibility before the follow-up advice and return value. Every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return shape. For a two-parameter destructive tool whose safety profile is already in annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both ids and site are already documented in the schema, including the multisite fallback and the list_sites hint. The description only restates that deletion is by id and adds nothing about the site parameter. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (delete), resource (redirect rule), cardinality (one or several) and key (by id). An agent can distinguish it from sibling redirect tools like create_redirect, update_redirect and test_redirect without opening any 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?

Tells the agent to supply ids from list_redirects and to verify fallout with list_not_found afterwards. It also flags irreversibility, implying there is no restore path unlike trash_content. It never explicitly names an alternative to use instead, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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