npm_update_redirection_host

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It communicates partial-update semantics via 'Provide only fields to change,' which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or what happens if the id does not exist. This leaves some gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. There is zero extraneous text, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is sparse. It does not mention the required id field, return values, or any prerequisites/effects. While the update nature is clear, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the operational 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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It provides no details about the 10 parameters other than implying that only fields to change need be provided. Parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's types and constraints.

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: 'Update a redirection host.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_redirection_host and delete_redirection_host. The phrase 'Provide only fields to change' reinforces the update semantics.

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 implies usage context: it is for modifying an existing redirection host rather than creating or deleting one. It provides guidance on how to use the tool ('Provide only fields to change'), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios. The context is clear enough, though it could be more explicit about when to use this over similar update tools for other resource types.

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