Update Redirects

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'delete' action aligns with that. However, the description adds no further behavioral context such as reversibility, permission requirements, or the impact of DELETE_ALL. It merely restates what the destructive annotation already conveys, so it meets the baseline but adds little.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a tool whose parameters are already documented in the schema.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, 4 enums, nested objects, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain how action_type determines which parameters are relevant (e.g., new_value for NEW, rules_to_update for UPDATE/DELETE), nor does it mention required fields beyond env_id and action_type. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 10 parameters, including enums for action_type and search controls. The description only reiterates the broad purpose without mapping parameters to specific actions, so it adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 clear action set (create, update, or delete) on a specific resource (redirect rules) for an environment, which is distinct from the sibling read-only tool kinsta_environments_redirects. However, it does not explicitly name that sibling or differentiate itself beyond the implied mutation, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that kinsta_environments_redirects is for reading, nor does it explain which action_type should be chosen for different scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema.

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