LightCMS

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing this is a destructive, repeatable operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as whether deletion is permanent, if there are cascading effects on linked content, or recovery options. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

While extremely brief and front-loaded, the three-word description is so minimal it constitutes under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It wastes no words, but also provides no informational value beyond the tool name itself.

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 simplicity (single ID parameter), strong annotations, and complete schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to identify the tool's scope. However, it fails to enrich the structured data with any additional context about redirects or deletion behavior.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter 'id' is already well-documented in the schema as 'Redirect ID (MongoDB ObjectID),required'. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, syntax details, or examples, warranting the baseline score for complete schema coverage.

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 'Delete a redirect' is a tautology that restates the tool name/title with only slight modification (adding an article). While it identifies the resource type (redirect), it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling deletion tools like delete_content or delete_asset beyond what is already implied by the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_redirect (for modifying vs. removing) or create_redirect. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion criteria mentioned.

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