npm_create_redirection_host

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses only that the tool creates a forwarding rule, but omits any side effects, requirements (e.g., certificates), reversibility, or response behavior, similar to the update_drive example.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and earns its place by stating the primary function concisely.

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?

This is a complex tool with 10 parameters, 4 required, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema. The one-sentence description is insufficient to guide correct usage; it does not address certificate handling, response format, or the meaning of advanced options, leaving the agent without critical context.

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 low (30%), so the description must compensate, but it does not. While 'forwards one domain to another' hints at domain_names and forward_domain_name, it fails to explain critical parameters like forward_scheme, forward_http_code, block_exploits, or advanced_config, adding 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 clearly states the action (create) and the resource (redirection host) with a specific outcome ('forwards one domain to another'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_proxy_host and create_stream by explicitly naming 'redirection host' as the resource.

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. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or when to prefer creating a proxy or stream instead, leaving usage entirely implied.

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