LightCMS

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering safety profile. The description adds context about redirect permanence (301 vs 302 behavior), but omits details on propagation delay, validation rules, or conflicts with existing paths.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First states purpose; second provides specific HTTP status guidance. Efficiently structured without extraneous text.

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?

Adequate for a 4-parameter creation tool with complete schema annotations. Given the lack of output schema and simple flat structure, the description covers the essential behavioral context (permanent vs temporary) to supplement the structured data.

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 complete descriptions for all four parameters. The description text reinforces the status_code semantics but adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Clear verb (Create) + resource (URL redirect). The mention of 301/302 status codes distinguishes this from generic content creation tools like create_content or create_folder. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update_redirect regarding when to create new vs update existing.

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?

Provides specific guidance on status_code values ('Use 301 for permanent...'), which helps parameter selection. However, lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_redirect for modifying existing redirects) or prerequisites.

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