LightCMS

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, establishing the safety profile. The description adds no information about whether this performs partial updates (implied by schema but not confirmed) or full replacement, what gets returned, or side effects like cache invalidation. It merely states the obvious operation type.

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 extremely brief at four words, avoiding verbosity. However, the single sentence fails to earn its place by providing tautological information that matches the title. It is concise but insufficiently informative.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description should clarify update semantics (partial vs. full) and expected returns. With five parameters and only one required, the partial update capability is strongly implied but undocumented, leaving agents to infer behavior from schema structure 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in structured fields. The description adds no additional parameter context (e.g., path format expectations, that empty strings might unset fields), but baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 'Update an existing redirect' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal variation. While it adds the word 'existing' to imply the resource must pre-exist, it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_redirect' or explain what distinguishes an update from a creation operation.

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 (e.g., when to update vs. delete and recreate), nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the implied existence of the redirect. There are no explicit exclusions or conditions.

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