delete_redirects

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value on top by disclosing the post-deletion behavior (old URLs answer 404 or resolve to a newly published page) and the response payload {deleted: <count>}, effectively serving as a lightweight output schema.

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, front-loaded with the action and its irreversible nature, then the consequence, then the return shape. Every clause 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 no-output-schema, destructive, two-parameter tool, the description supplies the consequence of deletion and the return shape, which is enough for correct invocation. It could still note any permission requirements or bulk-deletion limits, but nothing essential 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (ids, site) are fully documented there, including the multisite fallback and the list_sites hint. The description only restates 'by id' and the return count, adding nothing beyond the structured fields, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('delete redirect rules by id') with the permanence qualifier, which cleanly separates it from the sibling update_redirect/create_redirect/list_redirects family. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

It implies the usage context (removing redirects so old URLs 404) and tells you to verify with list_not_found afterwards, but never states when this is preferable to updating a redirect or that the ids come from list_redirects (that detail is only in the schema). No explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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